The links you make are so ridiculously weak that even the Bush administration decided the general American public would be too smart to believe them. And that's saying alot.
We went to war against Saddam because our President claimed he was a grave and gathering threat to us and the world. He was not. He claimed Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. He did not. He alluded links between Saddam, 9/11, and al-Qaeda. There were none.
By your logic, we should invade Pakistan and overthrow the regime ruling it since Al-Qaeda is present in its northern mountainous region bordering Afghanistan. A few years ago, there was an Al-Qaeda sleeper cell in Buffalo caught after 9/11. Should Bush have called for a full scale land invasion of the US and the overthrow of his own regime?
The question of why the Bush administration chose not to take out this terrorist and his cell is still unanswered. The only answer you have is to blame BJ Clinton and be aghast by those of us who don't share your world view.
Who's really playing the mental gymnastics?
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: leeboy
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I've noticed a trend again - and since the other side seems to think this is a valid argument I'll use it
Seems as though there has been an increase in ranting attacks on Bush - the left must have realized that kerry isn't the guy and are running scared.
CkG
Silly, don't you realize it doesn't matter WHO we run up against Dubya, we are going to win. Rolls eyes at you CAD, rolls eyes. Pft. Your corner is getting smaller and smaller CAD, keep painting.
Yup - keep telling yourself that it doesn't matter who runs against Bush. Just don't whine and bawl about it on here when kerry loses in November.
CkG
Wish we could bet on that! Tell you what, if Bush wins I'll post an open letter to you with full congrats and you do the same if Kerry wins?
At this point, it would take a major unearthing of something new and evil from Kerry's past to derail the inevitible.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: leeboy
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: leeboy
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I've noticed a trend again - and since the other side seems to think this is a valid argument I'll use it
Seems as though there has been an increase in ranting attacks on Bush - the left must have realized that kerry isn't the guy and are running scared.
CkG
Silly, don't you realize it doesn't matter WHO we run up against Dubya, we are going to win. Rolls eyes at you CAD, rolls eyes. Pft. Your corner is getting smaller and smaller CAD, keep painting.
Yup - keep telling yourself that it doesn't matter who runs against Bush. Just don't whine and bawl about it on here when kerry loses in November.
CkG
Wish we could bet on that! Tell you what, if Bush wins I'll post an open letter to you with full congrats and you do the same if Kerry wins?
At this point, it would take a major unearthing of something new and evil from Kerry's past to derail the inevitible.
Buahahaha
Bow hasn't yet accepted our freindly bet on the election. Oh, and if hell freezes over and for some reason kerry wins - he has my full congrats. I don't think this nation really wants a repeat of the tantrums thrown by the losing side(some of whom still haven't let go). If Bush loses - so be it, but I will be sorrowful for our nation as a whole if he does. kerry will not lead this nation forward as it needs led - but most people already know that.
CkG
Bowfinger,
Since when is cyanide gas not a WMD? It's more lethal than Mustard gas ever thought of being. Ricin has no antidote and can be used by airborne release, in either dust, or aerosol form. Get with the modern program. Virtually ANY lethal chemical can be made into a WMD with little effort. The delivery system is the hard part, and the Iraqis had the delivery systems already developed and tested.
Nice try though.
Since when is cyanide gas not a WMD? It's more lethal than Mustard gas ever thought of being. Ricin has no antidote and can be used by airborne release, in either dust, or aerosol form. Get with the modern program. Virtually ANY lethal chemical can be made into a WMD with little effort. The delivery system is the hard part, and the Iraqis had the delivery systems already developed and tested.
Nice try though.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Sorry, not my area of expertise. Based on what I've read, neither cyanide nor ricin is considered a useful agent for weapons of mass destruction. They are more useful for terrorism and assassination. I went through this before with someone re. ricin. If you lookup ricin on mainstream sources of information, they talk about how lethal it is, but they don't call it a WMD agent. I remember one site said it would take something like two tons of ricin to have the same lethality as a kilo of sarin (IIRC). It's tough to disperse two tons of a chemical effectively.
But if you can offer better sources of information, I'm interested. (Just don't give me some right-wing mouthpiece looking to excuse Bush's adventure by redefining WMD. Find us some credible sources with no partisan agenada.)
I think you just made my point. Does this mean every lethal compound is now a WMD, an excuse to invade countries we don't like. Do we invade New Zealand for its massive stockpiles of the deadly poison anhydrous ammonia (that their farmers use as fertilizer)? Do we invade Brazil for its thousands of liters of lethal sulfuric acid (used in countless routine manufacturing processes)? Where do we draw the line?
As others have documented, this area of Iraq was not under Hussein's control in any case. I would have supported Bush taking out this camp via some combination of air strikes and commando-style limited ground attacks. It was NOT a justifcation for invading the whole country, IMO.
You may want to do some more reading because every description I've read of ricin calls it one of the most lethal substances on Earth. The equivalent of a pinhead is enough to kill an adult: CDC description. By the way, if you'll notice when reading that link, CDC lists ricin under "Chemical Agents" which sounds a lot like "Chemical Weapons" to me (TX Dept of Health calls it a bioterrorism agent). Another problem with your analysis, or lack thereof, is that ricin must be specifically developed to be used as a poison and does not have any current other use. Sulfuric acid or anhydrous ammonia or cyanide all have other uses than as means to kill humans. Further, comparing the lethality of ricin to that of the most deadly compounds ever manufactured (ie., nerve gas), proves nothing in terms of evaluating the lethality of ricin. A "weapon of mass destruction" means a weapon (defined either by use or manufacture) which kills out of proportion to its size. Ricin certainly qualifies.
What's also terribly amusing is how all the Bush-haters are saying they would have supported some sort of "surgical strike" on Zarqawi's camp. We all know how successful Clinton's attack was in Afghanistan, and I can almost guarantee that the Bush-haters would have screamed bloody murder at an attack against the Kurdish areas of Iraq, despite their statements now. If it had missed, it would been another "intelligence blunder" (and people who have no concept of what intelligence is, in several senses, are the loudest critics, amusingly enough). If it had worked, and we would have never known in all likelihood because BDA (bomb damage assessment) would have been difficult at best, there would have been Congressional inquiries into a "unilateral attack on a sovereign nation".
Plus, like heartsurgeon says above, you folks really need to work on your contraditions. Either there was WMD in Iraq, or there wasn't. Either al'Qaida was present, or it wasn't. An attack on Iraq has GWOT implications, or it doesn't. It's like "argument tennis", which I suppose goes very well with Kerry's voting record.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Absolutely true. But it is not well-suited for WMDs. All toxins are not created equal, just as all aluminum tubes are not created equal.
That's because it is a chemical agent. Note that the CDC also lists ammonia, acids, benzene, and even tear gas as "chemical agents". Do they all sound like "Chemical Weapons" to you? More importantly, do they all sound like chemical weapons to Bush? If so, we're going to be doing a lot of invading.
Agreed. I specifically said ricin was useful for terrorism and assassination
No, a "weapon of mass destruction" is something that is effective at causing mass destruction (hence the name). In the case of a toxin, it would be something that is effective at killing large numbers of people. Ricin is apparently not well-suited for this. Your CDC link doesn't suggest otherwise.
Speaking only for myself, you would be mistaken. I fully supported our actions in Afghanistan -- as we have discussed in the past -- and the first Gulf War. I'm not sure which "Bush-haters" you are referring to. Should I sterotype you as one of those brain-washed Bush apologists who characterizes anyone who disagrees with you as a "Bush-hater"? Is it perhaps possible that some of us object to Bush on the merits of his performance? Think about it.
Could-a, would-a, should-a. Since Bush just sat on his hands, I guess we'll never know. It seems like you should be a little more concerned about George's refusal to act against a legitimate terrorist target because it weakened his case for invading a phony one. Surely you aren't letting partisan politics override your patriotism?
Sorry, you don't get to redefine the issues. The country of Iraq did not pose a significant threat to the U.S. or its allies. The country of Iraq does not appear to have retained any significant stocks of WMDs or WMD production capabilites, notwithstanding the false claims of Bush and his minions. (Though I have maintained from the beginning that having such stocks would NOT have justified Bush's invasion, in and of itself.) The fact that there may have been toxic agents or one or more associates of al Qaida within the physical borders of Iraq is not at all the same as claiming Iraq, the country, had those things. There are no contradictions.
In the military, chemical agent and chemical weapon are synonymous. Tear gas is also a chemical weapon, controlled under similar conventions as nerve and blood AGENTS. By the way, blood agent is always referred to as an "agent", so I guess that makes it a household chemical, huh?
You're treading on my career field so I suggest you take my word for it. Neither VX, GB, blood agents, mustard gas, phosgene, or any other chemical AGENT will destroy anything but people. Neither will ricin. Ditto for anthrax and various other biological AGENTS. By your definition, only nuclear weapons qualify. Ricin is well suited for killing people rapidly, but it has never been used that way (yet). In aerosol form, it could very easily have similar lethality to other chemical agents. Anthrax in most forms isn't terribly effective, but in a very fine form, it is very lethal. Ask the National Enquirer.
Fine. You supported Clinton's "surgical strike" which did absolutely nothing except make people feel good? It was veneer, just like an attack on the camp in Iraq would have been.
Your argument rests on the labeling of Iraq as a "phony" target, which is hardly the case. Further, since I wear a uniform every day, you might want to hold the patriotism comments for the mirror.
Best sentence. Inaccurate claims of Bush, and the UN, and France, and the UK, and Hans Blix, and Clinton, and nearly everyone before the war started.
You have the gall to say I'm redefining the issues when the issue prior to OIF was not whether or not Iraq had WMD but how to disarm him? Classic.
On Cyanide as a terror weapon, or WMD: I suppose this info from the horses mouth should suffice.........................
Ramzi Yousef, one of the convicted 1993 World Trade Center masterminds, told federal agents that he would have used sodium cyanide if he had the money because he wanted to create a deadly gas cloud that would rise into the office towers and kill everyone. Ahmed Ressam, the al Qaeda terrorist convicted in the Los Angeles International Airport millennium bombing plot, testified recently that he had been trained in an Afghanistan camp on how to kill people with cyanide. Here's a partial transcript from his testimony last summer against a fellow conspirator:
Question: "You practiced these techniques on the dogs so that later on in one of your operations you would be able to perform such techniques on human beings, is that correct?"
Ressam: "Yes. We wanted to know what is the effect of the gas, yes."
Question: "Some of your potential targets while you were in the camp were American citizens, is that correct?"
Ressam: "In regard to targets in general, yes. Yes, we were speaking about America as an enemy of Islam."
Question: "[O]ne of the examples was to put the cyanide right near the air intake of a building such as a government building, correct?"
Ressam: "Yes, that's right."
Question: "And the reason that you would put the cyanide, you were trained, near the air intake would be to kill the most amount of people without endangering yourself and without being detected, correct?"
Ressam: "Yes, that's how gas is used in killing."
Ressam also described how terrorist coaches instructed al Qaeda campers on how to mix cyanide and other toxic chemicals into an oily paste to smear on door handles so that those who touched them would be killed by toxins coursing through their blood. This method, Ressam confirmed, was to be used "against intelligence officers and other VIPs."
Ramzi Yousef, one of the convicted 1993 World Trade Center masterminds, told federal agents that he would have used sodium cyanide if he had the money because he wanted to create a deadly gas cloud that would rise into the office towers and kill everyone. Ahmed Ressam, the al Qaeda terrorist convicted in the Los Angeles International Airport millennium bombing plot, testified recently that he had been trained in an Afghanistan camp on how to kill people with cyanide. Here's a partial transcript from his testimony last summer against a fellow conspirator:
Question: "You practiced these techniques on the dogs so that later on in one of your operations you would be able to perform such techniques on human beings, is that correct?"
Ressam: "Yes. We wanted to know what is the effect of the gas, yes."
Question: "Some of your potential targets while you were in the camp were American citizens, is that correct?"
Ressam: "In regard to targets in general, yes. Yes, we were speaking about America as an enemy of Islam."
Question: "[O]ne of the examples was to put the cyanide right near the air intake of a building such as a government building, correct?"
Ressam: "Yes, that's right."
Question: "And the reason that you would put the cyanide, you were trained, near the air intake would be to kill the most amount of people without endangering yourself and without being detected, correct?"
Ressam: "Yes, that's how gas is used in killing."
Ressam also described how terrorist coaches instructed al Qaeda campers on how to mix cyanide and other toxic chemicals into an oily paste to smear on door handles so that those who touched them would be killed by toxins coursing through their blood. This method, Ressam confirmed, was to be used "against intelligence officers and other VIPs."
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Son, you need to read my post more closely. You have either missed or misinterpreted practically everything I said.
That doesn't mean you are wrong about ricin being a WMD agent. You just didn't support it with your link. If you have other, better links, please share them. The only stuff I've read says ricin is not an effective WMD agent.
But once again, I'm open to better information if you can post good links. Stop arguing with what I didn't say and show me good evidence supporting your contention.
(By the way, seems like David Kay and many others with first-hand information disagree with your dismissive comments about Clinton's strike. Seems to me Clinton actually did what Bush-lite claimed he had to do, only Clinton did it without killing 10,000 innocent people and spending $200 billion. But that's a subject for another thread.)
I think all patriotic Americans should question why Bush didn't go after this camp, knowing full well such an attack would be an effective strike against terrorism. My suspicion is that he didn't want to weaken his case for invasion, i.e., he put his personal agenda ahead of the best interests of America. I fully acknowedge this is just my suspicion, not something I can prove.
I further think that although you are undoubtedly quite patriotic, you're letting your partisan zeal for Bush override your patriotism. You should be concerned about Bush's lack of action, but you are loathe to question anything he does or does not do. I may be wrong, but that's how it appears.
That's not strictly true, nor it is relevant. Many intelligence agencies including Britain's and the DIA admitted they did not know what WMD capabilities Iraq retained. They wrapped their estimates in all sorts of disclaimers -- disclaimers Bush & Co. suppressed and ignored. Further, regardless of what the various agencies suspected Iraq had, we had better means available to confirm or refute those suspicions, specifically the inspectors who were on the ground again. There was no imminent threat that justified Bush's rush to invade. We had time to do it right.
This doesn't have to be another strictly partisan argument. I'm not wed to idea that ricin is not really a WMD agent. I just haven't read anything that contradicts this. I am truly open to better information if you can provide it.
I'll also repeat the real point behind this discussion: the fact there was a terrorist camp in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq does not in any way, shape, or form support the claim that the country of Iraq had WMDs. There is no contradiction.
While it's interesting to know what the military calls things, it is irrelevant to this thread. You suggested that the CDC listing ricin as a Chemical Agent reinforced your contention that it was a WMD agent. I pointed out the CDC also lists ammonia, acids, and benzene as chemical agents. Are you also contending that ammonia, acids, and benzene are WMD agents? If not, then your comment about the CDC is irrelevant.
That doesn't mean you are wrong about ricin being a WMD agent. You just didn't support it with your link. If you have other, better links, please share them. The only stuff I've read says ricin is not an effective WMD agent.
Again, you completely miss my point. Obviously toxins won't destroy buildings and physical infrastructure. That is why I explicity stated that toxins qualify (or do not qualify) as WMDs based on their effectiveness at killing large numbers of people. Your whole comment is therefore a tangent unrelated to my point: based on what I've read, ricin in not an effective WMD agent because it is not well-suited for killing large masses of people. It is great for terrorism and assassination. It is not good as a WMD agent.
But once again, I'm open to better information if you can post good links. Stop arguing with what I didn't say and show me good evidence supporting your contention.
Oh for God's sake, how the hell did you twist "the first Gulf War" and "our actions in Afghanistan" into "Clinton's 'surgical strike'"? Are you even pretending to read what I wrote?
(By the way, seems like David Kay and many others with first-hand information disagree with your dismissive comments about Clinton's strike. Seems to me Clinton actually did what Bush-lite claimed he had to do, only Clinton did it without killing 10,000 innocent people and spending $200 billion. But that's a subject for another thread.)
In your opinion. Many well-informed but less partisan people disagree with you. This includes most of the world. Also see my comments immediately above.
Nope, don't think so. Wearing a uniform doesn't automatically make a person patriotic or non-partisan. You'll rise or fall on your merits, not your uniform.
I think all patriotic Americans should question why Bush didn't go after this camp, knowing full well such an attack would be an effective strike against terrorism. My suspicion is that he didn't want to weaken his case for invasion, i.e., he put his personal agenda ahead of the best interests of America. I fully acknowedge this is just my suspicion, not something I can prove.
I further think that although you are undoubtedly quite patriotic, you're letting your partisan zeal for Bush override your patriotism. You should be concerned about Bush's lack of action, but you are loathe to question anything he does or does not do. I may be wrong, but that's how it appears.
That's not strictly true, nor it is relevant. Many intelligence agencies including Britain's and the DIA admitted they did not know what WMD capabilities Iraq retained. They wrapped their estimates in all sorts of disclaimers -- disclaimers Bush & Co. suppressed and ignored. Further, regardless of what the various agencies suspected Iraq had, we had better means available to confirm or refute those suspicions, specifically the inspectors who were on the ground again. There was no imminent threat that justified Bush's rush to invade. We had time to do it right.
As above.
This doesn't have to be another strictly partisan argument. I'm not wed to idea that ricin is not really a WMD agent. I just haven't read anything that contradicts this. I am truly open to better information if you can provide it.
I'll also repeat the real point behind this discussion: the fact there was a terrorist camp in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq does not in any way, shape, or form support the claim that the country of Iraq had WMDs. There is no contradiction.
Jeff7181
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2002
- 18,368
- 11
- 81
Would've, should've, could've... it's extremely easy for some reporter and the rest of us citizens to point fingers at the president and his advisors. The president has a very tough job, the decisions he makes have the potential to effect the entire world. He can't go wipe out a bunch of people without an extremely good cause... or he risks an international incident that could spark a war.
Many of you disagree with the war in Iraq... many of you believe what you read, that he never did have any reason to believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and that his personal feeling toward Saddam because of Pres. Bush Sr. is the reason he started this war. I'm lucky in that I don't know anyone serving in Iraq, so I don't have to be scared for someone close to me, and I feel for those of you that do have friends or family in Iraq right now. I also thank those people who are over there defending my right to sit here at my computer and express just why I disagree with those of you who say Pres. Bush is doing a bad job and doesn't deserve his position... as well as you're right to sit there at your computer and call the president of our county a dumb cowboy. Only in America...
Anyway... back to my original train of thought...
I'm confident in our commander in chief... I just finished lecturing a younger friend about consequences after he told me about his first time smoking weed that turned out to be laced with something pretty nasty. President Bush doesn't have the luxury of being able to get advice from someone wiser and in a higher position of power to tell him what he should do and why. He, along with his advisors, must figure that out on their own... and that fact that we're still here, and a horrible dictator like Saddam isn't a direct threat to the world any longer, speaks more loudly than all the reporters and bleeding heart liberals in this country.
*EDIT* Don't expect a response if you reply to me, I don't visit P&N often, but I'm bored and felt like voicing my opinion. Take it for what it's worth... and sorry if it offends anyone, but I'm as much entitled to my opinion as you are.
Many of you disagree with the war in Iraq... many of you believe what you read, that he never did have any reason to believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and that his personal feeling toward Saddam because of Pres. Bush Sr. is the reason he started this war. I'm lucky in that I don't know anyone serving in Iraq, so I don't have to be scared for someone close to me, and I feel for those of you that do have friends or family in Iraq right now. I also thank those people who are over there defending my right to sit here at my computer and express just why I disagree with those of you who say Pres. Bush is doing a bad job and doesn't deserve his position... as well as you're right to sit there at your computer and call the president of our county a dumb cowboy. Only in America...
Anyway... back to my original train of thought...
I'm confident in our commander in chief... I just finished lecturing a younger friend about consequences after he told me about his first time smoking weed that turned out to be laced with something pretty nasty. President Bush doesn't have the luxury of being able to get advice from someone wiser and in a higher position of power to tell him what he should do and why. He, along with his advisors, must figure that out on their own... and that fact that we're still here, and a horrible dictator like Saddam isn't a direct threat to the world any longer, speaks more loudly than all the reporters and bleeding heart liberals in this country.
*EDIT* Don't expect a response if you reply to me, I don't visit P&N often, but I'm bored and felt like voicing my opinion. Take it for what it's worth... and sorry if it offends anyone, but I'm as much entitled to my opinion as you are.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter