Blix found a "smoking gun" in Iraq?

[Ted Striker]

Slumber party!!!

[Dinner]

It takes about the same technology level as your average 1920's crop duster to create a spray noozel to deliver chemical weapons.

[Ramo]

On the contrary it is at the heart of the matter.

Saddam would never be stupid enough to use WMD's unless there's international sanction (or if US troops are about to march down the streets of Baghdad). Using such weapons would currently insure a quick death, and he gains little from such actions. When he gassed Kurds and Iranians, he was our boy and they were our enemies. During the Gulf War, he didn't dare use the chemical weapons he had on coalition forces because that would've meant the end of his regime.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Yes, your right Ur. You know more then the Powell, the CIA, and British intelligence. Everyone who doesn't agree with you if telling lies; everyone except Saddam that is who always tells the truth. BTW read the article in the first post and learn how foolish you've been or if you like go to the BBC or to CNN for they have similar articles.

I'm sure you'll get up and dismiss them all as an imperialist plot or claim none of the experts know nearly as much about the issue as you do though.

Oh my sides

British Intelligence - found to have plagarised from a decade old report

CIA - used outdated maps

Powell - unable to provide any solid information to the UNSC last month, and he used the fake British intelligence report.

You still have not been able to substantiate the US/UK assertion. Neither has Jack Straw or Colin Powell.

Where is your point?

[Drake Tungsten]

How does any information you quoted refute the IAEA's report?

It demonstrates the IAEA's past record of being completely oblivious to secret Iraqi nuclear programs. I thought that was pretty obvious, but I'm not a dullard...

[Dinner]

He'll us them the second his back is to the wall.

[Ramo]

Isn't that a reason not to attack?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kramerman
anybody know any alternative purpose for these drones other than for delivering chemical agents? What else could there purpose be in other words, my imagination is at a loss and i havent really read much on this discovery.

Uh, the US/UK assertion is that these drones can go more than 150km, thus violating the UNSC resolution. It was not about whether they can be used to carry chemical agents.

[Dinner]

I'd say it is proof he's lieing to the U.N. and that many of the Lefties here at 'poly are willing proticipants in this fantasy.

Saddam isn't hording these WoMD to help little children. he's hording them to use them so it is imparative we disarm him before he has a chance to use them on his own terms against targets of his choosing.

[Drake Tungsten]

Uh, the US/UK assertion is that these drones can go more than 150km, thus violating the UNSC resolution.

Where'd you get this false idea? You didn't even read the article I posted, did you?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin
It takes about the same technology level as your average 1920's crop duster to create a spray noozel to deliver chemical weapons.

So Iraq is not allowed crop dusters?


Saddam Hussein is really the twin of Ming the Merciless, about to unleash his diabolical AnthroVXmustardiobolical ray..and only Bush and the Chickenhwak brigade can stop him! Go go chickenhawks ho!!

I always find it funny when a group of ideologically equally minded people spend half a thread patting themselves in the back.."good job billy", "yeah, great work timmy".

It demonstrates the IAEA's past record of being completely oblivious to secret Iraqi nuclear programs. I thought that was pretty obvious, but I'm not a dullard...

One bit of that sentence is wrong......

Yeah, we all know only the IAEA has issues over the past..you know, its not like the admin. ever sold us an idea that turned out to be utterly wrong, you know, like the Atta-Iraq meeting in Prague....

As they say, proof of past mistakes is not proof of present ones...otherwise we would still be calling our president a drunken coke-hoar.

[cinch]

He'll us them the second his back is to the wall.

Isn't that a reason not to attack?

I'll say!

If Saddam doesn't have chemical weapons then why is he busy building delivery systems? I am afraid many of you leftist appologists take your hatred of America to far. You ignore the obvious truth because it is politically expedient to do so. I suspect that deep down (even if your political sensabilties will not let you admite it) you know Saddam is hording illegal WoMD but you choose to ignore that fact and play fanciful games in which the U.S & U.K. are equated to Saddam's war crimes because it makes you feel good to imagine it is so.

Hatred of America? Why does this always come out? I am anti-war, but pro-America. Is that okay?

Also, the reasoning in your first sentence is suspect. He has the means to deliver chemical weapons, therefore he must have chemical weapons. The drone COULD be altered to carry chem weapons. Therefore he must have MILLIONS of vials of anthrax. It is possible to have guns without bullets... and chem weapons are a lot harder to come by than bullets.

So no, I certainly don't hate America. I just don't think a spy plane is grounds for war. Thank heavens the Chinese are with me on that.

[Drake Tungsten]

Are you going to make any real arguments, GePap, or are you just going to continue flapping your lips and making smilies? Deal with the thread topic or get out...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

How does any information you quoted refute the IAEA's report?

It demonstrates the IAEA's past record of being completely oblivious to secret Iraqi nuclear programs. I thought that was pretty obvious, but I'm not a dullard...

First of all, there is zero corroboration with the information you quoted from other sources. Even if I ignore the bias (which is obvious) of the site you quoted, how is the mere words of a defector more trustworthy than that of IAEA or the weapons inspectors? Secondly, the IAEA report has conclusively refuted these bald assertions.

Where are your facts?

[Drake Tungsten]

Also, the reasoning in your first sentence is suspect. He has the means to deliver chemical weapons, therefore he must have chemical weapons. The drone COULD be altered to carry chem weapons. Therefore he must have MILLIONS of vials of anthrax. It is possible to have guns without bullets... and chem weapons are a lot harder to come by than bullets.

Only grossly misinformed people seriously argue that Saddam doesn't have chemical and biological weapons. Welcome to the club...