Americans in Iraq Attacked W Bomb Containing Nerve Gas (WMD)

All of this bombast on the part of those who would belittle the fact that a shell that had sarin in it was found is, essentially, meaningless.

It is as clear as can be that the Democratic Party does not believe that Saddam had WMD's and destroyed almost all of them before 2003.

It is also clear that the Republican Party believes that Saddam had WMD's and probably hid some of them or sent them out of the country to Syria.

All of this can be cleared up by citing authority:

President Bill Clinton, the leader of the Democratic Party said, as recently as December 16th 1998 in a speech in which he gave a rational for his order of a "substantial military strike" against Iraq:

quote

"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community --led by the United States--has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday--make no mistake about it--he will use it again as he has in the past"

He will use it again as he has in the past-

The author of that statement was not Tom DeLay or Senator Inhofe or Senator Frist or Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, but rather the LEADER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY- BILL CLINTON.

It is clear that Brandon9000's statement that "If the info we had or thought we had at the moment of invasion appeared to show a serious risk of WMD, then the invasion was justified" is precisely correct. It is buttressed by the statement of the leader of the Democratic Party- Bill Clinton who said: "He (Saddam) will use it( arsenal of destruction) as he has in the past."

0 Replies

Brandon 9000- Please note that it is possible that some people never heard of World War II.

0 Replies

yilmaz101 wrote:

The whole WMD case of the administration is about the suspicion that saddam was developing a WMD program. Which has not been proven in any way. And yes brandon even the shell that has you so excited is not proof of his WMD development program....There are attrocities and repression going on in many places but I don't see the US trying to make a difference.

You misunderstand everything.

The now confirmed finding of a nerve gas bomb is proof that Iraq had WMD when they said that they didn't. According to the terms of Iraq's surrender in the first Gulf War, it agreed to destroy its WMD and not make more.

According to your skewed logic, the US may not intervene to do good anywhere, if it does not intervene to do good everywhere. The reason we invaded Iraq is because we believed that Iraq had WMD that could someday be used against us. "Atrocities and repression" in other parts of the world, have nothing to do with an evil dictator amassing weapons which could someday be used to strike a crippling blow against the US. This is why we intervened there as opposed to somewhere else - because we are frightened of WMD falling into the hands of a latter day Hitler. One single use of one single WMD could kill a huge number of people.

0 Replies

Whoa there, kimosabe. The experts are now saying that the 120mm shell they found "may" have contained sarin. Kay also said it mostly was left over from before 1991. Let's not jump to any conclusions yet - and what Bill Clinton may have said is moot. He didn't start the war in Iraq.

0 Replies

Another possibility bandied about is that it may be sarin that the US gave to Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war. They said they will be able to prove that by chemical analysis.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

The now confirmed finding of a nerve gas bomb is proof that Iraq had WMD when they said that they didn't.

I'm interested in how you think this proof works.

0 Replies

Deecups36 wrote:

Let the Bushites have their WMD fantasy. It makes them feel better and gets them off the streets.

Which part of it is fantasy? That a single WMD can kill a huge number of people? That WMD are coming within the reach of more and smaller countries and groups? That some dictators and terrorists want them? That WMD could be smuggled into the US and detonated from within?

Which one of these statements is a fantasy?

0 Replies

Brandon, I'll start with your imagination. BTW, don't walk across the street, it dangerous you know.

0 Replies

I can't believe there are still some people who think this war was justified. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

By the consensus of defintions I've ever found, the bomb found with sarin gas could not be called a WMD (especially as it is nearly comfirmed it was an out-of-date and likely not recently tested delivery system). Not even a stockpile could be called WMD. There would have to be a working delivery system (missles, bombers, etc.)

The current usage of the term WMD is chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. This is nerve gas, a chemical weapon. Furthermore, according to the simplest meaning of the words, a nerve gas weapon is a "weapon of mass destruction," as compared to say a hand grenade.

According to you, if Hussein had had hundreds of nukes, they wouldn't have been WMD if he didn't have ICBMs. Guess what? Iraq had a delivery system. A WMD could be sent into the US in pieces, and assembled and detonated from within.

We went in to Iraq on the suspicion that they had WMD. We just found a WMD.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

I can't believe there are still some people who think this war was justified.

Yes, in fact millions.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Brandon, I'll start with your imagination. BTW, don't walk across the street, it dangerous you know.

Now, here is your quiz question for today. Which is more dangerous, walking across the street or a WMD?

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

The now confirmed finding of a nerve gas bomb is proof that Iraq had WMD when they said that they didn't.

I'm interested in how you think this proof works.

Finding WMD is proof of the existence of WMD. That's how it works.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Whoa there, kimosabe. The experts are now saying that the 120mm shell they found "may" have contained sarin. Kay also said it mostly was left over from before 1991. Let's not jump to any conclusions yet - and what Bill Clinton may have said is moot. He didn't start the war in Iraq.

Who cares what it was or wasn't left over from? According to the terms of his surrender after the first Gulf War, he agreed to destroy them, and he told us that he had.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Another possibility bandied about is that it may be sarin that the US gave to Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war. They said they will be able to prove that by chemical analysis.

According to the terms of his surrender, he agreed to destroy them, and he told us that he had.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

According to your skewed logic, the US may not intervene to do good anywhere, if it does not intervene to do good everywhere.

This sentence is a thing of beauty. It's so good it brings tears to my eyes.

kickycan wrote:

I can't believe there are still some people who think this war was justified.

Actually the vast majority of Iraqis think the war was justified, if you can believe the polls.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:

The now confirmed finding of a nerve gas bomb is proof that Iraq had WMD when they said that they didn't.

I'm interested in how you think this proof works.

Finding WMD is proof of the existence of WMD. That's how it works.

I neglected to clarify that I was not inquiring about existence but rather ownership and timing, both of which you alleged is proven through means I consider dubitable.

0 Replies

Deecups36 wrote:

This bomb the Bushites want to claim is the long, lost proof of WMD in Iraq contained Sarin nerve gas. The very same thing the Iraqis bought from the USA back in the early 1980's to use against their mortal enemy at the time, Iran.

Plus we know that there are huge numbers of Iranian guerilla fighters flooding over the border and Iran certainly has chemical and biological weapons. Nobody stopped to think that it could just as easily have come across the unchecked border from Iran in the past few months.

Or more properly, they're ignoring the possibility because it would be yet another snafu on their record.

0 Replies

Tarantulas wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
According to your skewed logic, the US may not intervene to do good anywhere, if it does not intervene to do good everywhere.

This sentence is a thing of beauty. It's so good it brings tears to my eyes.

kickycan wrote:
I can't believe there are still some people who think this war was justified.

Actually the vast majority of Iraqis think the war was justified, if you can believe the polls.

I will give weight to those polls when you give weight to polls showing bush is in big trouble for reelection.

0 Replies

Iran has chemical weapons? Since when? I know they were on the receiving end of chemical attacks from the Iraqi Army, but I hadn't heard they had them too.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Quote:
kickycan wrote:
I can't believe there are still some people who think this war was justified.

Actually the vast majority of Iraqis think the war was justified, if you can believe the polls.

I will give weight to those polls when you give weight to polls showing bush is in big trouble for reelection.

I don't care whether you believe the Iraq polls or not.

EDIT - to fix the nexted quotes

0 Replies

Americans in Iraq Attacked W Bomb Containing Nerve Gas (WMD)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know