Chemical Weapons in Iraq??Follow

I don't need proof anymore-- unless you're willing to take the position that this particular arty shell was the only chemical munition in the entire country. The proof is that sarin gas that was released. My position has been vindicated and the naysayers have been shown to be naive.

Totem

Really officer, although I'm 20 pounds underweight I still need to have three cases of Dexatrim in my basement. You see officer, when my girlfriend gets out of prison she'll want to loose some weight.

Oh, and those four cases of batteries are just in case we have an extended power outage.

RIIIIIGHT!!!!!

Oh. Additionally, the article said that the shell wasn't labeled. So, while the US military may be very dilligent about putting numbers and such on shells so that we know what they are and when they were made, it may be that in this case, that was not done.

Was that just sloppiness? Or was this shell not labeled on purpose (so as to conceal what it was)? I have no idea, and we're not given enough information to make more then a guess. However, it's seems more reasonable given the data we do have to guess that this shell contained no markings indicating what it was as there is to assume there were.

depending on the shell type, and the facilities available to the person disassymbling it, and their skill. Seperatly, neither liquid is that dangerous. sure, you wouldn't want to drink it, but so long as you use resperator gear you aren't going to die. it needs to be inhaled. You could theoretically get an aerosaol can of some sort, or a propane tank, mix the stuff inside, and set the valve to open on a timer or something, maybe put it in an air vent, but unless you have a high up dispersal it's not going to affect all that many people. the stuff is heavier than air, so the explosion helps spread it.


realistically, it would be easier to just drop a bunch of rat poisen in the drinking water supplies. i mean, it is a desert...

hell, thos illushyian planes probably should be banned. Never buy your airliner from Iran folks...

Ok. So you've just presented a very compelling argument that regardless of the fact that this particular shell was used in a way that prevented it from casusing mass fatalities, since it's design and construction has the intent and capacity to do so, it qualifies as a WMD.

Detonating a nuke underground where no one is hurt, does not make it not a WMD. In the exact same way, detonating this shell on the side of a road in a manner that didn't kill anyone either doesn't make it not a WMD either.

Just making sure we're clear on this. The shell was, by every definition, a weapon of mass destruction. It is specifically of the type that Bush claimed that Iraq possessed, and was specifically part of the reason we went to war with Iraq. Can we all just accept all of that as fact?

The only question is where this shell has been for the last 13 years. If it was in country, then this is indeed proof that Iraq "possessed WMD" at the time that Bush (and every intelligence agency in the world) said they did.

If it was outside the country, and then moved back into the country, then it provides support for the argument that Iraq's WMD were moved elsewhere during the 90s. Um... That's still a violation of the UN resolutions.


I tend toward the first explanation. If this shell was moved outside Iraq at some earlier date, and moved back into the country recently, then why didn't the people using it know it was a chemical weapon? That makes about zero sense. It makes a hell of a lot more sense that Saddam was hiding weapons around in caches around the country (you can hide a lot of this type of shell in a basement really), but didn't tell many people at all where they were. After the war, some group of people found one of the caches. Obviously, they didn't know what they were, or they would have used them differently.


Dunno. That just makes the most sense to me.

It does one very important thing. I forces people to face the "real" reasons they disagree with the war.

What I've been seeing people do for the last year and a half is attempt to wrestle with the reason why their government has come to a different decision about Iraq then they would have. The WMD issue was a convenient "excuse". As long as there was any doubt about whether Iraq actually possessed WMD at the time (as tenuous as that was to the decision by the government in the first place), then they could sit back and point to it and say that there was a "reason" why the government was wrong.

With that reason removed, they're left with one somewhat uncomfortable truth: Their elected government by a 2/3rds majority decided on a course of action that they don't agree with. And they didn't do it because they were misinformed, or didn't have all the data they needed to make "the right choice". They made it knowing full well what was going on, and they made a different choice then some people think was right.


Guess what? That's natural. The entire reason we have a representative form of government is the assumption that everyone will not always agree on everything. It's pretty much the norm that if you present a large group of people with the exact same data, and the exact same set of circumstances, and the exact same goals, that they will come up with many different ideas about how to handle the situation. That's why we have a relatively small number or representatives in Congress. That's also why there are set amounts of majority required to pass various bits of legistlation. The entire system is built around the assumption that not everyone will agree on everything.

And sometimes, *you* will be in the minority opinion. Sometimes, you just have to accept that...

See. This is where you have it backwards. We don't have to prove anything. Our Congress determined that Iraq was a continuing threat to the security of the US. The President agreed with that and made a decision to remove that threat. The Congress granted the president the power to use the military to that end.

I don't need to prove anything. The decision was already made by those who were elected and given the power, authority, and *right* to make that decision.

It is you who must argue the case that Congress and the President were wrong. Up until today, that argument has largely been about the lack of WMD found in Iraq after the war.

It's you who are grasping at straws. It's you who's just had one more straw removed from the pile. It's you who has to make a case as to why you are right, but the "experts" who are responsible for actually making the decisions are wrong. It's easy for you to archair quarterback the situation. You don't have to be held accountable for it. Obviously, those who do made their decision. You are free to agree or disagree with that, but I think it's kinda bizaare to argue that someone who agrees with the decision the government made is "grasping at straws". How is that exactly?

Seems more to me like I maybe understand the reasons we went to war and happen to agree with them. The burden is on you, not me...

Are you trying to argue a point? Or just using innuendo?

The resolution to go to war with Iraq passed in both houses by more then a 2/3rds majority. Exactly how many "hanging chads" are we talking about here?...

Every recount of the votes in Florida, taking every possible permutation, resulted in a win for Bush.


If you have a point to make, make it...

Once again with the innuendo. If you have a point to make, make it. You can do it. It's not that hard. Simply type out what you are trying to say. I get really tired of folks thinking that a sly implication is a substitute for having an actual argument.


It's also doubly annoying because after I totally slam you, you'll then turn around and say: "But I never said X...".

Again. If you have something to say. Say it. If you don't, then don't post.

No. I just wanted you to actually say what you were talking about.

Ok. Now prove your position. According to the Supreme Court, he was. According to every count and recount, he was. Why are you claiming he wasn't?