- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
Bush: We Found Weapons
I don't but this argument. Finding empty, sterilized mobile laboratories - no matter what they MAY have been for
do not constitute a weapon. A weapon is the finished product of a process or procedure.
A laboratory may be able to make a lot of things, bio-weapons being a POSSIBILITY, but without end item no threat.
There was some speculation of it being a 'Just-in-Time' factory lab with a 45 minute preparation rate, but you can't
just cook-off a batch of Anthrax in a 45 minute session. From what I understand there is a minimun of 48 hours,
maybe as long as 72 hours for an organic batch preparation, then comes the drying down, and micro-milling that
would have to be accomplished to make the clumps of material dispersable.
Ricin is a Castor Bean plant dirivative, heat inactivates the toxin, so cooking it off nullifies the end product.
Serin, not sure how long the batch work-up takes, but the layout and design of these mobile labs would leave
the technicians dead on the floor of the trailer before the work was done - even in their suits.
Mustard gas is not a viable weapon in the atmospheric envelope of Iraq's desserts.
The mobile labs were most likely a fueling support vehicle for short range rockets and were equiped
to handle monomethyl hydrazine or nitrogen tetraoxide propellants. A lot of that stuff has been found.
Once again - if the mobile labs were a weapon it would be used to run over people standing on the road
when they came blazing by at 30 to 40 miles and hour. They are large - and underpowered vehicles.
I don't but this argument. Finding empty, sterilized mobile laboratories - no matter what they MAY have been for
do not constitute a weapon. A weapon is the finished product of a process or procedure.
A laboratory may be able to make a lot of things, bio-weapons being a POSSIBILITY, but without end item no threat.
There was some speculation of it being a 'Just-in-Time' factory lab with a 45 minute preparation rate, but you can't
just cook-off a batch of Anthrax in a 45 minute session. From what I understand there is a minimun of 48 hours,
maybe as long as 72 hours for an organic batch preparation, then comes the drying down, and micro-milling that
would have to be accomplished to make the clumps of material dispersable.
Ricin is a Castor Bean plant dirivative, heat inactivates the toxin, so cooking it off nullifies the end product.
Serin, not sure how long the batch work-up takes, but the layout and design of these mobile labs would leave
the technicians dead on the floor of the trailer before the work was done - even in their suits.
Mustard gas is not a viable weapon in the atmospheric envelope of Iraq's desserts.
The mobile labs were most likely a fueling support vehicle for short range rockets and were equiped
to handle monomethyl hydrazine or nitrogen tetraoxide propellants. A lot of that stuff has been found.
Once again - if the mobile labs were a weapon it would be used to run over people standing on the road
when they came blazing by at 30 to 40 miles and hour. They are large - and underpowered vehicles.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
So we should have waited until they were actually using these things(if they hadn't already)? Gotta love reactionaries
CkG
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,101
- 5,640
- 126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
So we should have waited until they were actually using these things(if they hadn't already)? Gotta love reactionariesDon't prevent the problem - no...we wouldn't want to do that
CkG
Yes, you should have. One is not guilty of a crime until the crime is commited. Face it, Iraq was never a threat to the US.
This administration is using diplomacy as a tool of war, instead of war as a tool of diplomacy.
Bush has turned over the foreign policy of this country to the neocons in DOD with whack-a-mole approach to the world.
Bush has turned over the foreign policy of this country to the neocons in DOD with whack-a-mole approach to the world.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
So we should have waited until they were actually using these things(if they hadn't already)? Gotta love reactionariesDon't prevent the problem - no...we wouldn't want to do that
CkG
Yes, you should have. One is not guilty of a crime until the crime is commited. Face it, Iraq was never a threat to the US.
I would agree with that - don't remember ever posting that they were an imment threat to the US. But even so - they broke the agreement and should have gotten "spanked" along time ago.
Was Al-queda a threat to the US before they attacked us? Not really. But that fact is - that they did attack us. When exactly does a "problem" become a "threat" - THAT is the whole argument. I think nipping the problem in the butt before it becomes real threat, obviously you think that line for action is in a different place.
CkG
Your logic is up to it's usual high standards, Caddy. We should kill everybody else on the planet. That's real prevention especially since they're hiding so successfully behind their not threat disguise.
But Bush did, hence the backlash.
I don't disagree with this.
You can't compare Al Queda to Saddam. Al-Queda is a group of religious whackos prepared to sacrifice thier lives to strike at the US. Saddam was the ruler of a country, and as bad as he was, wasn't stupid enough to jeopardize that by crossing the US in any substantial way.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Great extrapolation
I don't see how "taking out" a known murderer(who posseses(did, does, will) WMD and who doesn't follow through with cease-fire agreements) is killing "everybody else on the planet". But whatever, it's your logic - not mine.
CkG
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,265
- 126
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,265
- 126
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
I know, but I am in a forgiving spirit. You are off the hook for now.
Gee, thanks.
Let me in on the joke. Saddam never made one aggressive military move against the US save for the first Gulf war, where we intervened, and AA fire in the no fly zone, over HIS country. Sure he's had his shinanigans, but he's never gone out of his way to really piss us off because he was quite aware of the consequences.
You just answered your own question. Two wars and a constant refusal to cooperate with weapons inspectors but no, you're right, he never "crossed" the US in any substantial way.
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
You just answered your own question. Two wars and a constant refusal to cooperate with weapons inspectors but no, you're right, he never "crossed" the US in any substantial way.
Sure he's had his shinanigans, but he's never gone out of his way to really piss us off because he was quite aware of the consequences.
Name one aggressive military move toward the United States he instigated. Not Kuwait, we intervened after the fact. Not the no fly zone skirmishes, we were over HIS country. Certainly not this last war, we instigated that. Bush equated the threat Saddam posed to the United States to that of a scale of 9/11 or greater. That was the reason we supposedly faught this war. And not only is there still no evidence to back that up, it just doesn't make sense logically. Al Queda attacks because they want to die, Saddam has played his games because he wants power.
But Dave, few knowledgable commentators considered Iraq to be a greater threat to world peace than Iran or North Korea. Bush et al manufacturered (or at the very least greatly embellished) the Iraqi threat to justify war. There are plenty of nations that do not comply with UN resolutions . . . including some that receive direct subsidies from the US government. It is disingenuous to use such behavior as a pre-eminent reason for intervention when we essentially reject it when such behavior is practiced by the US or one of its patron states.
Staying in Kuwait after we told him to get out, firing at our planes in a UN mandated no fly-zone, refusing to cooperate with inspectors, etc. ,etc. are not shenanigans. They were clearly a "fsck you" directed at us and the rest of the world.
Well this is clearly where our opinions will diverge. IMO Saddam was a threat to the stability of the region, the stability of which is vital to the continued flow of oil which we are so dependent on to maintain our economic, and therefore our national security. No the LCAC's were not about to roll up on Miami beach but to say that Saddam wasn't a threat to our national security is to have a myopic view of what a threat is. I have been saying this ever since we started talking about this, before I read the much maligned PNAC docs and I continue to believe that it was the underlying reason for our stance wrt Iraq.
JMAO
Exactly. They were 'fsck you's, they were NOT direct threats to the US. And the UN never mandated the no-fly zone.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2490361.stm
XMan
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 12,513
- 49
- 91
The only threat to the stability of that region was US greed and envy. Iraq invaded Kuwait when they demanded immediate repayment of loans. Iraq was then going to use that countries wealth and oil to purchase weaponry to use against the US...WRONG, they were going to use those weapons to beat the tar out of Iran, which is no friend to the US. Iraq wasn't going to sit on the oil reserves and say "all mine and none for you", that is just stupid. They need the revenue from oil sales and there was no reason not to sell to the US. The US couldn't stand the fact that Iraq was going to be a potiential super power in the region and acted. The following inconclusive results of the first Gulf War was the cause of instability in the region. The sanctions put on Iraq not only weakened Saddam but also hurt countries such as Syria and Turkey and countries such as Iran became more powerful. Iraq became a shadow of its former self. Its military was in shambles and it was forced to destroy its chemical and bio weapons. A threat to no one. The US presence in the area since the end of the first Gulf War served to tick off terrorist such as Bin Laden whose group attacked US interest several times. Then the US, out for blood or oil invaded Iraq and ousted Saddam. Now the country is in a position to become outer Iran with people calling for the setup of an Islamic state. Is this a more favorable situation? It is similar to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in which power shifted, for a short time, to Iraq.
It looks like the US wasted a lot of time, money and lives to make Iran a potential superpower. Is this what you call stability? The US would have been better off letting Saddam have Kuwait.
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
Actually I do tend to trust and believe Tony Blair, as he always presents himself well, and talks intelligently.
However if he fell victum to manufactured evidence that the U.S. presented to him as fact - his ass is on the line.
He placed his political future in trusting in the Bush Administration, falsification means he's been had.
All the hype that went along with the presentation may have been bought hook, line, & sinker by his trust in our intelligence organization.
However if he fell victum to manufactured evidence that the U.S. presented to him as fact - his ass is on the line.
He placed his political future in trusting in the Bush Administration, falsification means he's been had.
All the hype that went along with the presentation may have been bought hook, line, & sinker by his trust in our intelligence organization.
Bush also gave in to Bin Laden's demand to withdraw troops from Saudi Arabia. That's only going to encourage terrorists.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter