42% of Americans still believe Iraqi WMD were found

[GarfieldtheCat]

Again...I'm not arguing this point. And, for the record, I agree with you.

Ah, so you admit you are trolling....ok then. I was correct on my first reply.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Ah, so you admit you are trolling....ok then. I was correct on my first reply.

Seek help.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Seek help.

You admitted they weren't WMD, but you still claim that we found WMD. Troll on dude. Ignorant and trolling....good match in your mind I guess.

 

[Brainonska511]

If they caused injury to those that uncovered them; yes.

Also, becuase they were hidden; someone else felt that they were of some potential down the road.

They were most likely not capable of being used in the way they had been originally intended to be used (eg: artillery shells). However, the purity of the chemicals, particularly of mustard gas, has left the warheads quite potent and dangerous for both ordinance disposal and for those that wish to turn them into IEDs.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You admitted they weren't WMD, but you still claim that we found WMD. Troll on dude. Ignorant and trolling....good match in your mind I guess.

Wow...just wow. It took me a while, but now I really do feel sorry for you.

 

[spacejamz]

So are we to believe that Saddam, one of the most cruelest and inhumane dictators in history, decided that he no longer wanted a WMD program after he gassed the Kurds in the 80's? or would simply end his WMD program to comply with UN requests?

 

[Brainonska511]

So are we to believe that Saddam, one of the most cruelest and inhumane dictators in history, decided that he no longer wanted a WMD program after he gassed the Kurds in the 80's? or would simply end his WMD program to comply with UN requests?

And after 10 years and billions of dollars spent in Iraq, and thousands of lives lost, and tens of thousands wounded, how much evidence did we find of this 'new WMD program'?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So are we to believe that Saddam, one of the most cruelest and inhumane dictators in history, decided that he no longer wanted a WMD program after he gassed the Kurds in the 80's? or would simply end his WMD program to comply with UN requests?

I think is pretty clear that there was no active program to develop additional WMD at the time we invaded. However, instead of disposing of all his WMD stockpile amassed during the 80's and early 90's, he chose to hide a good number instead.

 

[fskimospy]

I think is pretty clear that there was no active program to develop additional WMD at the time we invaded. However, instead of disposing of all his WMD stockpile amassed during the 80's and early 90's, he chose to hide a good number instead.

There's really no evidence for that. If I remember correctly there were something like 500 total shells that were found around the country and they were old, degraded, and generally not useful. That far more strongly implies incompetence and poor controls than a choice to hide them. (why would you hide them but then let them become useless?)

 

[Brainonska511]

There's really no evidence for that. If I remember correctly there were something like 500 total shells that were found around the country and they were old, degraded, and generally not useful. That far more strongly implies incompetence and poor controls than a choice to hide them. (why would you hide them but then let them become useless?)

They found a lot more than 500 if you read through the NYT articles on the hidden WMD found throughout Iraq. But from what it looks like, it looks like there was a mix of hiding them for a) no easy way to dispose of them and b) hide them among regular munitions to keep inspectors from finding them.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

There's really no evidence for that. If I remember correctly there were something like 500 total shells that were found around the country and they were old, degraded, and generally not useful. That far more strongly implies incompetence and poor controls than a choice to hide them. (why would you hide them but then let them become useless?)

See Post #66.

 

[fskimospy]

See Post #66.

Seems to support what I said. If you're deliberately hiding something why would you hide it in a way that makes it useless? That doesn't make any sense.

Incompetence and bad record keeping seems far more plausible than deciding to hide weapons in a way where you simultaneously made them unuseable to your troops but provided external antagonists something to attack you over.

 

[ivwshane]

If they caused injury to those that uncovered them; yes.

Also, becuase they were hidden; someone else felt that they were of some potential down the road.

Uh no. Do you know what WMD stands for? Weapons of mass destruction. If the only people capable of being hurt by them are the people who are disposing them then they aren't WMD's, they are a work hazard. Would you be ok if your work let you handle hazardous material and when you got sick or you or others died they tried to cover it up?

Now you should understand the issue.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Uh no. Do you know what WMD stands for? Weapons of mass destruction. If the only people capable of being hurt by them are the people who are disposing them then they aren't WMD's, they are a work hazard. Would you be ok if your work let you handle hazardous material and when you got sick or you or others died they tried to cover it up?

Now you should understand the issue.

There were many, many caches discovered across Iraq and some were quite significant. I believe that it's safe to imagine the condition of the shells and rockets found varied greatly from site to site depending on storage conditions and I would hazard a guess that many were still quite capable of being used. Everything I've read indicates that mustard gas degradation was typically found to be very minimal and the sarin was found to be more degraded at roughly half its original concentration...although less effective, it was still quite deadly.

 

[cabri]

Uh no. Do you know what WMD stands for? Weapons of mass destruction. If the only people capable of being hurt by them are the people who are disposing them then they aren't WMD's, they are a work hazard. Would you be ok if your work let you handle hazardous material and when you got sick or you or others died they tried to cover it up?

Now you should understand the issue.

1) Determine the definition of MASS.

2) if those stockpiles were recovered and used to create causalities; what number would be considered MASS?

A MASS killing was reported in Europe last year - 10-12 people were killed.
The chemical weapons that were uncovered had the capability of killing more than that amount, if dispersed.

 

[spacejamz]

Seems to support what I said. If you're deliberately hiding something why would you hide it in a way that makes it useless? That doesn't make any sense.

Incompetence and bad record keeping seems far more plausible than deciding to hide weapons in a way where you simultaneously made them unuseable to your troops but provided external antagonists something to attack you over.

So you are saying that flying your air force fighter jets to your enemy makes sense then? this was what Saddam did with his remaining fighters towards the end of the first Gulf War...

With that kind of decision making, there is no telling what he was trying to do with his WMD stock piles...

 

[ivwshane]

There were many, many caches discovered across Iraq and some were quite significant. I believe that it's safe to imagine the condition of the shells and rockets found varied greatly from site to site depending on storage conditions and I would hazard a guess that many were still quite capable of being used. Everything I've read indicates that mustard gas degradation was typically found to be very minimal and the sarin was found to be more degraded at roughly half its original concentration...although less effective, it was still quite deadly.

You thinking they were capable of being used is not the same as they were capable of being used.

Do you have evidence to support such a possibility that these weapons could still be used or are you talking out of your ass?

People died (thousands more than on 9/11 and untold amount of innocent Iraqi citizens) because the American people were told Saddam had an active WMD program. Trying to say Saddam had active weapons is a continuation of that lie.

 

[blankslate]

While old chemical weapons were found in Iraq they're not indicative of a modern WMD program that the administration was arguing Iraq had when they mentioned Mushroom Clouds and such in the run up to the invasion of Iraq.

It was like saying he has an arsenal in his basement and it turns out the person collects civil war era muskets and blunderbusses and has one double barrel shotgun...

....

 

[ivwshane]

1) Determine the definition of MASS.

2) if those stockpiles were recovered and used to create causalities; what number would be considered MASS?

A MASS killing was reported in Europe last year - 10-12 people were killed.
The chemical weapons that were uncovered had the capability of killing more than that amount, if dispersed.

Put it this way; Would you be willing to sacrifice your life, your brother or sisters life, your friends or families life if you were told Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that could kill tens of people?

How about this; When the president and his administration told the American people that Saddam had wmd's and the next attack might be in the form of a mushroom cloud, did your mind immediately think of a pipe bomb or did you think of something bigger?


Not good enough?

Then try the non political definition;

A weapon of mass destruction (WMD or WoMD) is a nuclear, radiological, biological, chemical or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to human-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere. The scope and application of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more politically than technically. Coined in reference to aerial bombing with chemical explosives, it has come to distinguish large-scale weaponry of other technologies, such as chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear. This differentiates the term from more technical ones such as chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons (CBRN).

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction

 

[ivwshane]

While old chemical weapons were found in Iraq they're not indicative of a modern WMD program that the administration was arguing Iraq had when they mentioned Mushroom Clouds and such in the run up to the invasion of Iraq.

It was like saying he has an arsenal in his basement and it turns out the person collects civil war era muskets and blunderbusses and has one double barrel shotgun...

....

Not only that but these wmd's were manufactured before 1991 and they were built with parts supplied by US companies (thanks Dick).

 

[blankslate]

yeah, but why belabor that point when some people willfully ignore that aspect (Saddam Hussein being our guy in the M.E. when it came to fucking with Iran...)


...

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You thinking they were capable of being used is not the same as they were capable of being used.

Do you have evidence to support such a possibility that these weapons could still be used or are you talking out of your ass?

I don't have evidence either way and was clearly speculating. I figured most people would pick up on this when I used such phrases as "safe to imagine" and "I would hazard a guess".

People died (thousands more than on 9/11 and untold amount of innocent Iraqi citizens) because the American people were told Saddam had an active WMD program. Trying to say Saddam had active weapons is a continuation of that lie.

Saddam had thousands of WMD cached all over Iraq in various states of degradation when discovered. Why?...I don't know. It appears that you want to make an argument that none of the thousands and thousands of chemical weapons found were actually capable of being used...which is an unsubstantiated opinion that is just as valid as my unsubstantiated opinion that some were likely usable. I'm not trying to justify our actions invading Iraq...I'm just laying out the facts as I see them and making a reasonable assumption that some of those chemical weapons found were likely to be still quite functional. And lastly, I never said Saddam had an active WMD program. NEVER.