Incredibly depressing poll.

[cybrsage]

You have a strange idea that democracy means something other than having the ability to vote for your leaders. You need to realize it does not.

 

[nehalem256]

There is no democracy in Iraq, Iraq civil code is based on Sharia law which among other things tells people especially women who they can and cannot marry based Islam,
women had more rights under Sadaam Hussein than they do now


http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_774.html


http://houzanmahmoud.blogspot.com/2010/04/do-iraqs-women-miss-saddam.html


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]That is not democracy no matter what some fool of a politician says, and only a bigger fool would believe it
[/FONT]

It sounds like you want to force your idea of society onto Iraq. Despite the fact that they have democratically decided to go to a more Sharia based model.

Maybe you should try being more tolerant ^_^

 

[Jhhnn]

The only way you can say he did not is if you say Hans Blix was lying to the UN - most likely to keep his well paying job. This is, of course, a possibility. But if we assume he was not lying to the UN, then we must say he found WMDs in Iraq in 2003.

Do you think Blix lied to the UN in his report?

Blix never claimed to have found WMD's in the report you cite. His team found bits & pieces of chemical munitions, and no chemical weapons agents other than the 14 declared shells that had been awaiting destruction since 1997. It's right there in the UN document you quoted. Empty warheads, warheads filled with water, and warheads filled with HE are *not* WMD's, no matter how desperately you want them to be. Blix never claimed that they were.

The rest? Your "sources" merely cite each other & wikileaks materials they never produce, along with a great deal of supposition, projection, and the usual fearmongering. They're not sources for anything other than obvious disinformation, the sources of the OP's dismay.

Here's the ultimate source wrt the matter correctly pointing out that Iraq had no WMD's-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM

The "capacity to produce WMD's" is one of the great diversionary tactics used as apologism- the tech is 100 years old- any society that can produce basic chemicals & artillery shells can produce WMD's.

Real stockpiles of chemical weapons along the lines of what were alleged to have existed in Iraq-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pueblo_Chemical_Depot

http://current.com/community/901312...roying-huge-stockpile-of-chemical-weapons.htm

No such stockpiles were found in Iraq.

 

[shira]

Blix never claimed to have found WMD's in the report you cite. His team found bits & pieces of chemical munitions, and no chemical weapons agents other than the 14 declared shells that had been awaiting destruction since 1997. It's right there in the UN document you quoted. Empty warheads, warheads filled with water, and warheads filled with HE are *not* WMD's, no matter how desperately you want them to be. Blix never claimed that they were.

The rest? Your "sources" merely cite each other & wikileaks materials they never produce, along with a great deal of supposition, projection, and the usual fearmongering. They're not sources for anything other than obvious disinformation, the sources of the OP's dismay.

Here's the ultimate source wrt the matter correctly pointing out that Iraq had no WMD's-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM

The "capacity to produce WMD's" is one of the great diversionary tactics used as apologism- the tech is 100 years old- any society that can produce basic chemicals & artillery shells can produce WMD's.

Real stockpiles of chemical weapons along the lines of what were alleged to have existed in Iraq-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pueblo_Chemical_Depot

http://current.com/community/901312...roying-huge-stockpile-of-chemical-weapons.htm

No such stockpiles were found in Iraq.

The denial on the right is amazing. Bush states Iraq had no WMDs. But just look at some of the comments to that YouTube:

The facts outweight [sic] the anti-American, liberal bullshit going around. Saddam HAD WMD.

Right. Bush states "no WMDs," but this guy has "facts" to the contrary.

Whether Bush says Iraq had WMD or not, I personally know Marines who were attacked with chemical weapons in 2003 during the invasion of Iraq. I personally know Marines who met Iraqis that worked in facilities that had built WMD as late as March of 2003.

This second guy believes that the Bush administration wouldn't have jumped through hoops to produce even one example of "marines who were attacked with chemical weapons in 2003 during the invation of Iraq." Yet this guy "personally knows" that this is true.

You can't fix stupid. You can't fix true believers.

 

[cybrsage]

Blix never claimed to have found WMD's in the report you cite. His team found bits & pieces of chemical munitions, and no chemical weapons agents other than the 14 declared shells that had been awaiting destruction since 1997. It's right there in the UN document you quoted. Empty warheads, warheads filled with water, and warheads filled with HE are *not* WMD's, no matter how desperately you want them to be. Blix never claimed that they were.

When you claim that chemical warheads and munitions without all the parts in them are not WMDs, you are also saying a nuclear weapon without the detonator is not a WMD. That is silly.

A cluster bomb is a WMD.

His report also states they found UNDECLARED WMDs, and when they did Iraq quickly declared slightly over a dozen MORE UNDECLARED WMDs they had "forgotten" about.

It shows exactly what I have claimed - WMDs were found in Iraq shortly before the invasion.

The rest? Your "sources" merely cite each other & wikileaks materials they never produce, along with a great deal of supposition, projection, and the usual fearmongering. They're not sources for anything other than obvious disinformation, the sources of the OP's dismay.

Here's the ultimate source wrt the matter correctly pointing out that Iraq had no WMD's-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM

The "capacity to produce WMD's" is one of the great diversionary tactics used as apologism- the tech is 100 years old- any society that can produce basic chemicals & artillery shells can produce WMD's.

I will watch the youtube video later...but I never claimed they had an active WMD program. In fact, I said the exact opposite. This does not mean none were found, though, as they are different things.

 

[cybrsage]

The denial on the right is amazing. Bush states Iraq had no WMDs. But just look at some of the comments to that YouTube:



Right. Bush states "no WMDs," but this guy has "facts" to the contrary.



This second guy believes that the Bush administration wouldn't have jumped through hoops to produce even one example of "marines who were attacked with chemical weapons in 2003 during the invation of Iraq." Yet this guy "personally knows" that this is true.

Hans Blix knew it to be true because he was in charge of the people who found them. If you say he is lying, go ahead and write him and ask him why he lied to the UN.

You can't fix stupid. You can't fix true believers.

Sadly, this is why I suspect you will never be fixed.

 

[Bowfinger]

When you claim that chemical warheads and munitions without all the parts in them are not WMDs, you are also saying a nuclear weapon without the detonator is not a WMD. That is silly.

Your analogy is wrong. A more apt analogy would be you claiming a bottle filled with water is acid because it says "Sulfuric Acid" on the outside. It may be intended for acid, but it's really just a bottle of water. Blix & Co. found warheads that were designed for biological and chemical agents.

A cluster bomb is a WMD.

Wrong. You're once again making up your own definitions to fit your agenda. The term "WMD" as coined by the Bush administration specifically referred to what had until then been called "ABC" weapons: Atomic, Biological, and Chemical. Cluster bombs, in and of themselves, do NOT qualify. What Blix examined (item 86) were cluster munitions designed for chemical or biological use. They did NOT find any loaded with agents, however. Therefore, though they were certainly capable of becoming "WMDs", they were not actual WMDs.

His report also states they found UNDECLARED WMDs, and when they did Iraq quickly declared slightly over a dozen MORE UNDECLARED WMDs they had "forgotten" about.

It shows exactly what I have claimed - WMDs were found in Iraq shortly before the invasion.

No, once again, Blix found undeclared BC-capable warheads (items 88 & 122), but they were either empty or filled with water. Wannabe WMDs? Yes. Actual WMDs? No.

BY the way, your statement, "Iraq quickly declared slightly over a dozen MORE UNDECLARED WMDs they had 'forgotten' about" is factually false, at least based on any information you've provided. According to #88, it was four additional warheads, not twelve, and there is no explanation of why Iraq hadn't declared them earlier, your insinuation notwithstanding.

I will watch the youtube video later...but I never claimed they had an active WMD program. In fact, I said the exact opposite. This does not mean none were found, though, as they are different things.

Semantics duhversions aside, the real, inarguable point is that the Bush administration used false allegations to sell its invasion of Iraq. Iraq simply, factually, did not have the massive stockpiles asserted as fact by the Bush administration. They did not have the "30,000 liters of Sarin" (or whatever the exact claim was, it's been too long), the mobile WMD labs, the fleet of UAVs posed to strike American soil, etc. The aluminum tubes were not "only suited" for use in enrichment centrifuges as BushCo asserted; indeed they were unsuited for that use. The list goes on and on.

Nonetheless, these are the kinds of dishonest propaganda catapulted to Americans to justify the unprovoked invasion of Iraq. The decision to invade came first, the lies to justify the decision were built using whatever excuses they could invent. Had Blix and his team been allowed to finish their jobs, this deceit would have been shattered. Bush & Co couldn't allow that because it would derail their lust for war. So they recalled Blix and rushed to attack before their lies were even more exposed.

 

[piasabird]

Sadam was a very brutal dictator. I went to school with a person from Iraq at washington university in St Louis, MO. He told us one day that some person said something one time deragatory about the government and they rounded every young man up in that village around the age of 17 or 18 and no one ever saw or heard from them again. In fact he said that when he called home and talked to his mom on the phone they never talked about anything because they were always afraid Sadam's goons had the phones tapped. This is how scared people were of their own leader. No one would dare even speak out against a man like that.

I think this also says something about how ruthless and dangerous some arab and muslim people are. I figure Sadam's enemies were just as ruthless.

I still think that the war in Iraq was a mistake. I have no clue why anyone would want to help these people. All we got from this kindler gentler war was lots of dead military men and women.

 

[Jhhnn]

When you claim that chemical warheads and munitions without all the parts in them are not WMDs, you are also saying a nuclear weapon without the detonator is not a WMD. That is silly.

A cluster bomb is a WMD.

Chemical weapons w/o chemicals aren't chemical weapons, no matter how many times you try to claim they are. A nuclear weapon is not a nuclear weapon w/o fissionable materials, either. A bull w/o balls isn't a bull.

His report also states they found UNDECLARED WMDs, and when they did Iraq quickly declared slightly over a dozen MORE UNDECLARED WMDs they had "forgotten" about.

It shows exactly what I have claimed - WMDs were found in Iraq shortly before the invasion.

None of those supposed WMD's had chemical agents in them, other than the lousy 14 that had been declared previously in 1997 & held until UNMOVIC returned to dispose of them.

I will watch the youtube video later...but I never claimed they had an active WMD program. In fact, I said the exact opposite. This does not mean none were found, though, as they are different things.

So, uhh, your contentions are merely made to maintain the faithful in thrall to the necessity of invasion because of the "imminent threat!" posed by Iraqi WMD's that didn't exist, right? Or was that about the 14 previously declared warheads, the empty warheads, & the minor relics, the few bits & pieces that coulda, woulda been WMD's someday, maybe, in your wildest dreams...

I'm confident that you already watched the video, and are somehow trying to come up with a way to avoid conceding the fact that your hero, GWB, admitted that no WMD's were found in Iraq...

Just hope that'll go away, huh? Or go for the Dick Cheney moment, the "I never said that" moment...

 

[LegendKiller]

Well, to be fair, the British, Russian, and American intelligence services all said Iraq did too...including Hans Blix in one of his last reports to the UN also said he found prescribed WMD devices.

That's because the source of the info came from a single guy that we knew was unreliable yet everybody cross referenced that guy's "intel" to each other and believed it because they wanted to, not because they had corroborating evidence. This despite massive evidence to the contrary and the CIA suspecting and even having strong evidence the guy was a liar. The CIA or NSA never presented the full evidence in a consolidated report,instead publishing only the parts which supported war. Once people saw the full breadth of intelligence they all knew it was BS, that's why they kept it from people (including Powell).

 

[cybrsage]

Your analogy is wrong. A more apt analogy would be you claiming a bottle filled with water is acid because it says "Sulfuric Acid" on the outside. It may be intended for acid, but it's really just a bottle of water. Blix & Co. found warheads that were designed for biological and chemical agents.

Untrue, if you read US Law, you will find that the empty weapon (if it was designed to a carry ABR payload) is a WMD.

What are Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are defined in US law (18 USC §2332a) as:
“(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title (i.e. explosive device);
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title)(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life.”
WMD is often referred to by the collection of modalities that make up the set of weapons: chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNE). These are weapons that have a relatively large-scale impact on people, property, and/or infrastructure.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/wmd/wmd_faqs

Wrong. You're once again making up your own definitions to fit your agenda. The term "WMD" as coined by the Bush administration specifically referred to what had until then been called "ABC" weapons: Atomic, Biological, and Chemical. Cluster bombs, in and of themselves, do NOT qualify. What Blix examined (item 86) were cluster munitions designed for chemical or biological use. They did NOT find any loaded with agents, however. Therefore, though they were certainly capable of becoming "WMDs", they were not actual WMDs.

I am wrong, but not for the reason you came up with. Like you, I was unaware of what the US law says is a WMD and what is not. US Law codifies what ABC weapons are. Having found the actual law, I recant saying cluster bombs are WMDs as I was wrong about them.

No, once again, Blix found undeclared BC-capable warheads (items 88 & 122), but they were either empty or filled with water. Wannabe WMDs? Yes. Actual WMDs? No.

This is where you are wrong. They ARE WMDs.

BY the way, your statement, "Iraq quickly declared slightly over a dozen MORE UNDECLARED WMDs they had 'forgotten' about" is factually false, at least based on any information you've provided. According to #88, it was four additional warheads, not twelve, and there is no explanation of why Iraq hadn't declared them earlier, your insinuation notwithstanding.

Please...you are the kind of person who also believed the Iraqi Minister of Information when he said there were no US Tanks in Baghdad. Seriously, you think WMDs just appear out of thin air in a building without anyone knowing they existed? They just walked themselves into the building? Really?

Semantics duhversions aside, the real, inarguable point is that the Bush administration used false allegations to sell its invasion of Iraq. Iraq simply, factually, did not have the massive stockpiles asserted as fact by the Bush administration. They did not have the "30,000 liters of Sarin" (or whatever the exact claim was, it's been too long), the mobile WMD labs, the fleet of UAVs posed to strike American soil, etc. The aluminum tubes were not "only suited" for use in enrichment centrifuges as BushCo asserted; indeed they were unsuited for that use. The list goes on and on.

Correct, there were no stockpiles nor was there an active nulear or Chem/Bio program. Irrelevant to the fact that there were WMDs found in 2003 by Hans Blix.

Chemical weapons w/o chemicals aren't chemical weapons, no matter how many times you try to claim they are. A nuclear weapon is not a nuclear weapon w/o fissionable materials, either.

According to US Law, a weapon designed to carry a chemical warhead is a WMD even if the chemicals are not currently inside the weapon.

 

[Jhhnn]

Untrue, if you read US Law, you will find that the empty weapon (if it was designed to a carry ABR payload) is a WMD.


http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/wmd/wmd_faqs

I am wrong, but not for the reason you came up with. Like you, I was unaware of what the US law says is a WMD and what is not. US Law codifies what ABC weapons are. Having found the actual law, I recant saying cluster bombs are WMDs as I was wrong about them.

This is where you are wrong. They ARE WMDs.

Please...you are the kind of person who also believed the Iraqi Minister of Information when he said there were no US Tanks in Baghdad. Seriously, you think WMDs just appear out of thin air in a building without anyone knowing they existed? They just walked themselves into the building? Really?

Correct, there were no stockpiles nor was there an active nulear or Chem/Bio program. Irrelevant to the fact that there were WMDs found in 2003 by Hans Blix.

According to US Law, a weapon designed to carry a chemical warhead is a WMD even if the chemicals are not currently inside the weapon.

Blah, blah, blah. Have time to watch the video? It's only 2:06M...

Comment on that instead of concentrating on weaselism, OK?

 

[1prophet]

You have a strange idea that democracy means something other than having the ability to vote for your leaders. You need to realize it does not.

I'm sure there were people like yourself back in the day that would have told the slaves in the south, women before they could vote, or the black men and women during the Jim crow days the same thing and believed it.

It was wrong then, it is wrong now just like your relative morality definition of democracy.

 

[cybrsage]

Blah, blah, blah. Have time to watch the video? It's only 2:06M...

Comment on that instead of concentrating on weaselism, OK?

Have not watched a YouTube video, as I was busy reading US Law. It is sad you consider the actual law to be weaseling. Tell me, what other US laws do you want to pretend do not exist?

EDIT: Just watched it. He was wrong. Come on, you are not seriously trying to tell me you think Bush is right in everything he ever said, are you? Seems you are cherry picking this to claim he was infallable at this exact moment. Silly Jhhnn.


Are you ready to admit that, by US Law (which is what the President of the US follows, in case you were confused by that bit), there were WMDs found in Iraq? Or are you simply going to pretend US law does not exist?

 

[cybrsage]

I'm sure there were people like yourself back in the day that would have told the slaves in the south, women before they could vote, or the black men and women during the Jim crow days the same thing and believed it.

It was wrong then, it is wrong now just like your relative morality definition of democracy.

Wow, you really ARE that stupid. Democracy, as it exists in the world today (aka representative democracy) is when you vote for your leaders.

You pretending it has to do with slavery is idiocy at best.

 

[nehalem256]

I'm sure there were people like yourself back in the day that would have told the slaves in the south, women before they could vote, or the black men and women during the Jim crow days the same thing and believed it.

It was wrong then, it is wrong now just like your relative morality definition of democracy.

Not allowing women and black people to vote is anti-democratic, because you are not allowing people to choose their leaders.

Democratically deciding who and at what age women can marry is not anti-democratic. It is anti-feminism. big difference

 

[Jhhnn]

Have not watched a YouTube video, as I was busy reading US Law. It is sad you consider the actual law to be weaseling. Tell me, what other US laws do you want to pretend do not exist?

EDIT: Just watched it. He was wrong. Come on, you are not seriously trying to tell me you think Bush is right in everything he ever said, are you? Seems you are cherry picking this to claim he was infallable at this exact moment. Silly Jhhnn.


Are you ready to admit that, by US Law (which is what the President of the US follows, in case you were confused by that bit), there were WMDs found in Iraq? Or are you simply going to pretend US law does not exist?

US law is meaningless in an international context, and the statute doesn't cover the Iraqi situation in the slightest- it's intended for use wrt domestic threats & specific threats against American citizens. It never provided justification for invasion of any country. Attempts to apply it are obvious weaseldom.

The ISG apparently defines WMD's differently than you do-

"The ISG has not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but [there is] the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq, although not of a militarily significant capability."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3718150.stm

Not that Blix had ever found any not already declared by the Iraqis, at all.

So, uhh, Dubya was wrong to admit that his main basis for the invasion of Iraq turned out to be false?

The CIA?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313...africa/t/cias-final-report-no-wmd-found-iraq/

Karl Rove?

http://www.therightperspective.org/2010/03/03/rove-admits-no-wmd-found-in-iraq/

FactCheck?

http://factcheck.org/2008/02/no-wmds-in-iraq/

How did this come to be? Easy- The Bushistas needed to whip public sentiment into a frenzy to accomplish the invasion of Iraq, and in that, facts didn't matter. They still don't in your world, apparently.

http://articles.cnn.com/2006-04-23/us/cia.iraq_1_iraq-war-cia-official-naji-sabri?_s=PM:US

 

[cybrsage]

US law is meaningless in an international context,

In case you are still not understanding it, US Presidents follow US law. I know it is a difficult concept to understand, so you might just have to accept it as true without fully understanding it.

US Law says the US Executive Office is correct in reading the reports to the UN as showing WMDs were found.

You do not have to like the law, but you cannot pretend it does not exist.

 

[cybrsage]

So to summarize:

Hans Blix reported to the UN that he found 12 (16 if you count the 4 declared later) undeclared weapons which were designed to carry nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons:

88. The discovery by UNMOVIC of twelve 122 mm chemical warheads and rocket
motors in mid-January 2003 at the Ukhaidar ammunitions depot led to an Iraqi
declaration regarding four additional warheads at Al Taji a few days later.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2003-580.pdf

US Law says weapons which were designed to carry nuclear, chemical, or biological agents are considered WMDs, regardless of them having a payload or not:

What are Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are defined in US law (18 USC §2332a) as:
“(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title (i.e. explosive device);
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title)(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life.”
WMD is often referred to by the collection of modalities that make up the set of weapons: chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNE). These are weapons that have a relatively large-scale impact on people, property, and/or infrastructure.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/wmd/wmd_faqs

This means that the undeclared items found by Hans Blix are considered WMDs by the United States.


THIS is what people need to prove is not true. You have to prove either that Hans Blix lied to the UN about those weapons being found and/or that the US Law does not exist or does not apply to the United States.

Unless you can do that, you must agree that Hans Blix found WMDs in Iraq.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Still too cowardly to write Hans and asked him which time he lied, the book or the report to the UN?

Careful little troll.....you have been proved wrong on WMD several times, and intentional posting of misinformation is still against the rules. You have been proved wrong several times, so continuing to lie would be willful misinformation.

You have been multi-banned already, you wouldn't want to get in trouble again would you?

Oh, and LOL at claiming Blix lied...cognitive dissonance FTW?

But hey, at least you are not the only ignorant bigot in the US, does that make you feel better somehow?

 

[Greenman]

Careful little troll.....you have been proved wrong on WMD several times, and intentional posting of misinformation is still against the rules. You have been proved wrong several times, so continuing to lie would be willful misinformation.

You have been multi-banned already, you wouldn't want to get in trouble again would you?

Oh, and LOL at claiming Blix lied...cognitive dissonance FTW?

But hey, at least you are not the only ignorant bigot in the US, does that make you feel better somehow?

"Careful little troll", really? That's your A game? That's as menacing as you can manage? You know that sounds like the flamboyant homosexual villein in a b movie, right? Trying to threaten cybrsage into silence is nothing short of absurd. If you have information, provide it. If you have an opinion say it, but leave the alpha male routine for someone with a testicle.

 

[cybrsage]

Amd the cowardly cat reappears, completely ignoring US law as if it does not apply to the US.

Hi coward! Did you write Hans Blix yet and demand he tell you which time he lied?

Now you will need to write the entirety of the US Congress and ask them why they think US Law does not apply to the US.

 

[cybrsage]

"Careful little troll", really? That's your A game? That's as menacing as you can manage? You know that sounds like the flamboyant homosexual villein in a b movie, right? Trying to threaten cybrsage into silence is nothing short of absurd. If you have information, provide it. If you have an opinion say it, but leave the alpha male routine for someone with a testicle.

That is what he says when he realizes facts do not support him.

 

[fskimospy]

This entire conversation is stupid. The US did not find weapons of mass destruction of the nature described by the United States in the leadup to the Iraq War. This fact has been publicly accepted by the principal actors in the investigation, the government officials most directly responsible for the invasion, and every intelligence service that has commented on it.

The fact aside that there is nothing in that FBI link that says a case unfilled with NBC would qualify as a "weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors" any more than an empty bullet casing would qualify as a conventional weapon, if someone taking that poll thought that the existence of a few empty shells met the standard for WMD's in an Iraq War context, that is evidence of the extreme partisan distortion of reality every bit as much as believing there were big stockpiles.

Cybrsage, stop shitting up my thread. If you want to have this boring and horrifyingly stupid argument for the 20th time to fulfill your need for negative attention be my guest, but do so in your own thread.

 

[cybrsage]

This entire conversation is stupid. The US did not find weapons of mass destruction of the nature described by the United States in the leadup to the Iraq War.

Then you also need to explain to us all why US Law does not apply to the US.

I posted my support, which is Hans Blix showing he found weapons designed to carry biological and/or chemical weapons and US law which says these items are WMDs.

You posted your personal opinion. Of the two, your opinion is meaningless. You need to explain WHY the US Law does not apply to the US and/or that Hans Blix lied.

Cybrsage, stop shitting up my thread. If you want to have this boring and horrifyingly stupid argument for the 20th time to fulfill your need for negative attention be my guest, but do so in your own thread.

Actually, the discussion of WMDs is 100% related to your thread where you whine that people think WMDs were found in Iraq. Because you have apparently forgotten what you typed, I will quote you:

Seriously. It's mostly a foreign policy poll, but this is yet another sign that one of our political parties has completely lost touch with reality.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~benv/files/poll%20responses%20by%20party%20ID.pdf

Q62: Almost 2/3rds of Republicans believe Iraq had WMD's in 2003.

If you did not want this item discussed in your thread, you should not have made it part of your original post.