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

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Don't advertize yourself.

BTW, Iraq wasn't prevented from having SCUDs until after the first US-Iraq war. And guess what, we found no SCUDs. Evyerthing the Iraqis weren't supposed to have, they either didn't have or we close on the line (like their missiles that were designed to go 150 klicks when their fueled weight was accounted for, but if not, went further) and were destroyed.

Um, it's kinda obvious that they had SCUDs. What was hitting Israel, rocks from space?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by General Ludd
I wouldn't consider WW2 recent history. But I would consider vietnam and agent orange recent history. And if you include things like napalm and cluster bombs, there's the gulf wars and afgahnistan.

Agent Orange != WMD. It's not supposed to kill people, it's supposed to kill plants.

Napalm != WMD. It's not a chemical weapon - the fire kills you. Otherwise, ANYTHING would be WMD.

Cluster bombs REALLY != WMD. They're frigging explosives.

Are you also going to claim that guns are WMD?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Um, it's kinda obvious that they had SCUDs. What was hitting Israel, rocks from space?

Iraq was hitting Israel with SCUDs in 2003? Oh right, you right-wingers are confusing 1991 with 2003.

Let me give you a little diagram to help you understand.


1991: SCUDS are not banned, Iraq has SCUDs.
2003: SCUDS are banned, Iraq does not have SCUDs.

See, very simple. Even a Texan can understand.

[Sava]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Iraq was hitting Israel with SCUDs in 2003? Oh right, you right-wingers are confusing 1991 with 2003.

Forgive Kuciwalker... he was like 2 in 1991.

[Sirotnikov]

several observations -

1st- it's nice to see you back cybershy. You've been missed

2nd - It is untrue that Iraq had no links with international terrorism.

3rd - It is untrue that 'there is no war on terror'. There is. It's just not on CNN.

4th - the shell appears to be a military designed shell - not something that some terrorists could build. it was, as I realize, supposed to be created at launching or pre-launmching by mixing two materials. this seems to me like it could prevent "spoilage" and is not something your ordinary terrorist organization is capable of producing.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Iraq was hitting Israel with SCUDs in 2003?

It looked like you were talking about right after the first Gulf war.

[chequita guevara]

Slowwhand made the observation that Iraq had banned weapons, specifically, SCUDs, and used them during the war. My point to him was that SCUDs were not banned until after the first war, and were not found in Iraq after the second war, and certainly hadn't been used during the war.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kucinich


Agent Orange != WMD. It's not supposed to kill people, it's supposed to kill plants.

It's poison. They sprayed villages, jungles, and farmland with it

Put 2 and 2 together.

Napalm != WMD. It's not a chemical weapon - the fire kills you. Otherwise, ANYTHING would be WMD.

My point was that it was an unconventional weapon, but what you just said is pretty silly. Guns don't kill you - bullets do.

Cluster bombs REALLY != WMD. They're frigging explosives.

Again, my point was that aside from causing mass destruction they litter the scene with unexploded munitions that essentially act as land mines and as a result cause uncontrolable damage.

But are explosives not to be considered weapons of mass destruction? I guess nukes aren't, in that case. Or is it the radiation that makes them a WMD? ... maybe you can claim that guns are WMDs, when they use depleted uranium shells.

[Whoha]

NK has around a thousand artillery pieces pointed at Seoul, thats why nothing has been done to them. That is as good as a nuclear device, since the minute the fighting starts, a lot of South Koreans are going to die.

[Vlad Antlerkov]

More tests on the WMD apparently forthcoming:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=QTOPGCVVCDBKKCRBAEZSFFA?type=topNews&storyID=5169086

Rumsfeld, responding to questions after a speech on Monday to the Heritage Foundation, a Washington think tank, said the testing could take some time.

"I've seen intelligence on the matter you've raised. What you cited, I believe, was a field test, which is not perfect," he said. "What we ought to do is to get the samples someplace where they can be tested very carefully before coming to a conclusion as to precisely what it was."

"We have to be careful. We can't take something that's inaccurate," Rumsfeld said. "So what we have to then do is track down and figure out ... what caused that to be there in this improvised explosive device? And what might it mean in terms of the risks to our forces, the risks to other people and any other implications that one might draw. And that's going to take some time."

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by General Ludd
It's poison. They sprayed villages, jungles, and farmland with it

Put 2 and 2 together.

So the pesticides we spray on crops are also WMD?

Is suntan lotion WMD? It's toxic, and we spray it on people.

My point was that it was an unconventional weapon, but what you just said is pretty silly. Guns don't kill you - bullets do.

My point was that it was not NBC - nuclear, biological, or chemical.

It's not particularly unconventional, anyways.

Besides, the definition of WMD is - get this - weapons of mass destruction. NBC weapons can all be used for that easily and efficiently. I don't know of any time napalm was dropped on an entire city (unless they used it in Dresden).

Again, my point was that aside from causing mass destruction they litter the scene with unexploded munitions that essentially act as land mines and as a result cause uncontrolable damage.

They cause "mass destruction" in large quantities, like everything else.

Plus, have we even used cluster bombs in the past decade or two? I know we didn't use them in the first Gulf War.

But are explosives not to be considered weapons of mass destruction? I guess nukes aren't, in that case.

By "explosive", I meant it in the sense that lots of combustion = big explosion, obviously.

Or is it the radiation that makes them a WMD? ... maybe you can claim that guns are WMDs, when they use depleted uranium shells.

Nukes are WMD because they are a simple, efficient way of kill mass numbers of people (primarily innocents).

Given that, chemical weapons are not as "WMD-ish" as nuclear and biological weapons, but still are.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kucinich
So the pesticides we spray on crops are also WMD?

They frequently are when you spray them on people.

[Kuciwalker]

OK, it's simple then. Agent Orange is not WMD. We were trying to kill frigging plants, not people.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Kucinich

Originally posted by General Ludd
It's poison. They sprayed villages, jungles, and farmland with it

Put 2 and 2 together.

So the pesticides we spray on crops are also WMD?

Is suntan lotion WMD? It's toxic, and we spray it on people.

So glad you do not realize the full extent of the ecological, economic, and demographic damage that the poisonous sprays did for South Vietnamese population.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kucinich
OK, it's simple then. Agent Orange is not WMD. We were trying to kill frigging plants, not people.

It was a chemical weapon. The purpose of that weapon was to turn sprayed areas into a desert. The fact that it kills people may have just been a "lucky" accident, but I doubt it. I think more likely, the U.S. didn't want to deal with international oprobrium for using chem weapons on humans.

Anyway, even if you ignore that, the U.S. recently sprayed Cuba with a type of plant scale that has infected their crops. In the 1970s, the U.S. infected the Cuban pig heards with Swine Fever, and a hlaf million animals had to be destroyed.