Where was this talk before?

[TravisT]

Okay, I may be missing a lot of the story here, but a few weeks back intelligence came back saying, in a nutshell, that there were no signs of Saddam having any WMD's. But now, we are hearing story after story after story with hundreds of tons of weapons that Saddam owned prior to the war being over there.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to discuss why they were or were not or where they are or who's fault it is that they are missing. What concerns me is that 3 weeks ago people were saying 'There were no WMD's there.' Now, we're being told he did have tons of things used for warfare. What is going on here? Am I confused about something? Why was there WMD's, then there were none, and now there is again? Is this the intelligence fault? Were they wrong with their report they released a few weeks ago?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TravisT
Okay, I may be missing a lot of the story here, but a few weeks back intelligence came back saying, in a nutshell, that there were no signs of Saddam having any WMD's. But now, we are hearing story after story after story with hundreds of tons of weapons that Saddam owned prior to the war being over there.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to discuss why they were or were not or where they are or who's fault it is that they are missing. What concerns me is that 3 weeks ago people were saying 'There were no WMD's there.' Now, we're being told he did have tons of things used for warfare. What is going on here? Am I confused about something? Why was there WMD's, then there were none, and now there is again? Is this the intelligence fault? Were they wrong with their report they released a few weeks ago?

HMX and RDX are not WMDs.

 

[TravisT]

Okay, but it was said that there was no sign that he was making weapons, there was no sign he had them....

But now this comes out. This contradicts what the intelligence said a few weeks ago. Am I wrong?

 

[CaptnKirk]

Link

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: TravisT
Okay, but it was said that there was no sign that he was making weapons, there was no sign he had them....

But now this comes out. This contradicts what the intelligence said a few weeks ago. Am I wrong?

Travis, you're not really understanding the difference between Sarin nerve gas (for example) and convetional weapons that almost all other coutnries are entitled to have. Now granted I've been told that the RMX and HMX being discussed was a no no, but the fact remains that they are NOT WMD's and therefore authorization for *war* would not have been given on their basis.

 

[TravisT]

I think you guys are missing my point. My point is, is that a few weeks ago we were told there were no WMD's there were no signs of them creating them, and basically, in a nutshell, we were told that Saddam had nothing to threaten us with.

But now, i'm not sure what RMX or HMX is, but obviously they are some form of explosives that can be used in warfare, or used to create something that can be used... So the stories are conflicting. Again, what am I missing here?

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: TravisT
I think you guys are missing my point. My point is, is that a few weeks ago we were told there were no WMD's there were no signs of them creating them

I think you're missing their point.

Conventional weapons are NOT WMDs.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TravisT
Okay, but it was said that there was no sign that he was making weapons, there was no sign he had them....

But now this comes out. This contradicts what the intelligence said a few weeks ago. Am I wrong?

These were known secondary, high-density explosives that had been marked by the IAEA. These are not WMDs. These are not weapons that constituted a violation of the ceasefire agreement.

 

[Engineer]

These were not being actively developed. They were under sealed bunker by the UN.

 

[TravisT]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TravisT
Okay, but it was said that there was no sign that he was making weapons, there was no sign he had them....

But now this comes out. This contradicts what the intelligence said a few weeks ago. Am I wrong?

These were known secondary, high-density explosives that had been marked by the IAEA. These are not WMDs. These are not weapons that constituted a violation of the ceasefire agreement.

ahhh, okay. It still is suprising that intelligence blew these weapons, regardless of whether they can be classified as WMD's or not, off. Obviously, these are a threat or we wouldn't be concerned about the weapons being in the hands of Al Qaeda. Why is it any less dangerous for Saddam, the terrorist, to have them?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TravisT

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TravisT
Okay, but it was said that there was no sign that he was making weapons, there was no sign he had them....

But now this comes out. This contradicts what the intelligence said a few weeks ago. Am I wrong?

These were known secondary, high-density explosives that had been marked by the IAEA. These are not WMDs. These are not weapons that constituted a violation of the ceasefire agreement.

ahhh, okay. It still is suprising that intelligence blew these weapons, regardless of whether they can be classified as WMD's or not, off. Obviously, these are a threat or we wouldn't be concerned about the weapons being in the hands of Al Qaeda.

Of course they are a threat! A small amount of this stuff is what took down that Pan Am flight over Lockerbie.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TravisT
Okay, I may be missing a lot of the story here, but a few weeks back intelligence came back saying, in a nutshell, that there were no signs of Saddam having any WMD's. But now, we are hearing story after story after story with hundreds of tons of weapons that Saddam owned prior to the war being over there.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to discuss why they were or were not or where they are or who's fault it is that they are missing. What concerns me is that 3 weeks ago people were saying 'There were no WMD's there.' Now, we're being told he did have tons of things used for warfare. What is going on here? Am I confused about something? Why was there WMD's, then there were none, and now there is again? Is this the intelligence fault? Were they wrong with their report they released a few weeks ago?

HMX and RDX are not WMDs.

They only become so when liberals think they are lost and can bash Bush. That is what makes it so confusing. That and liberals don't really know the difference anyway. It is all just words to them.

 

[jjzelinski]

Christ Travis, stop being so dense! Those ARE NOT WMD'S. Do you recall Bush Inc. coplaining to the world that Saddam may have possessed conventional weapons and we must go to war to completely disarm him? NO! It's quite easy! This is not getting the attention you want because EVERYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET realizes its a non-issue.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TravisT
Okay, I may be missing a lot of the story here, but a few weeks back intelligence came back saying, in a nutshell, that there were no signs of Saddam having any WMD's. But now, we are hearing story after story after story with hundreds of tons of weapons that Saddam owned prior to the war being over there.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to discuss why they were or were not or where they are or who's fault it is that they are missing. What concerns me is that 3 weeks ago people were saying 'There were no WMD's there.' Now, we're being told he did have tons of things used for warfare. What is going on here? Am I confused about something? Why was there WMD's, then there were none, and now there is again? Is this the intelligence fault? Were they wrong with their report they released a few weeks ago?

HMX and RDX are not WMDs.

They only become so when liberals think they are lost and can bash Bush. That is what makes it so confusing. That and liberals don't really know the difference anyway. It is all just words to them.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TravisT
Okay, I may be missing a lot of the story here, but a few weeks back intelligence came back saying, in a nutshell, that there were no signs of Saddam having any WMD's. But now, we are hearing story after story after story with hundreds of tons of weapons that Saddam owned prior to the war being over there.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to discuss why they were or were not or where they are or who's fault it is that they are missing. What concerns me is that 3 weeks ago people were saying 'There were no WMD's there.' Now, we're being told he did have tons of things used for warfare. What is going on here? Am I confused about something? Why was there WMD's, then there were none, and now there is again? Is this the intelligence fault? Were they wrong with their report they released a few weeks ago?

HMX and RDX are not WMDs.

They only become so when liberals think they are lost and can bash Bush. That is what makes it so confusing. That and liberals don't really know the difference anyway. It is all just words to them.

You're an ass. Here's a cookie.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Link

Good one

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TravisT

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TravisT
Okay, but it was said that there was no sign that he was making weapons, there was no sign he had them....

But now this comes out. This contradicts what the intelligence said a few weeks ago. Am I wrong?

These were known secondary, high-density explosives that had been marked by the IAEA. These are not WMDs. These are not weapons that constituted a violation of the ceasefire agreement.

ahhh, okay. It still is suprising that intelligence blew these weapons, regardless of whether they can be classified as WMD's or not, off. Obviously, these are a threat or we wouldn't be concerned about the weapons being in the hands of Al Qaeda.

Of course they are a threat! A small amount of this stuff is what took down that Pan Am flight over Lockerbie.

You got a link for that? I realize that fantasy doesn't come with a URL, but just maybe?

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TravisT
Okay, I may be missing a lot of the story here, but a few weeks back intelligence came back saying, in a nutshell, that there were no signs of Saddam having any WMD's. But now, we are hearing story after story after story with hundreds of tons of weapons that Saddam owned prior to the war being over there.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to discuss why they were or were not or where they are or who's fault it is that they are missing. What concerns me is that 3 weeks ago people were saying 'There were no WMD's there.' Now, we're being told he did have tons of things used for warfare. What is going on here? Am I confused about something? Why was there WMD's, then there were none, and now there is again? Is this the intelligence fault? Were they wrong with their report they released a few weeks ago?

HMX and RDX are not WMDs.

They only become so when liberals think they are lost and can bash Bush. That is what makes it so confusing. That and liberals don't really know the difference anyway. It is all just words to them.

You're an ass. Here's a cookie.

I love it when I get secondaries out of a bunker!

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Link

:laugh:

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TravisT

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TravisT
Okay, but it was said that there was no sign that he was making weapons, there was no sign he had them....

But now this comes out. This contradicts what the intelligence said a few weeks ago. Am I wrong?

These were known secondary, high-density explosives that had been marked by the IAEA. These are not WMDs. These are not weapons that constituted a violation of the ceasefire agreement.

ahhh, okay. It still is suprising that intelligence blew these weapons, regardless of whether they can be classified as WMD's or not, off. Obviously, these are a threat or we wouldn't be concerned about the weapons being in the hands of Al Qaeda.

Of course they are a threat! A small amount of this stuff is what took down that Pan Am flight over Lockerbie.

You got a link for that? I realize that fantasy doesn't come with a URL, but just maybe?

The bomb that took down that Pan Am flight was made of Semtex, which is comprised of an RDX and PETN

http://kreten.8m.com/new/semtex.htm

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: Condor
You got a link for that? I realize that fantasy doesn't come with a URL, but just maybe?

Wikipedia

 

[TravisT]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
Christ Travis, stop being so dense! Those ARE NOT WMD'S. Do you recall Bush Inc. coplaining to the world that Saddam may have possessed conventional weapons and we must go to war to completely disarm him? NO! It's quite easy! This is not getting the attention you want because EVERYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET realizes its a non-issue.

jj, stop turning this into something that i'm not trying to make it. #1, this thread had nothing to do with Bush. It had everything to do with what the intelligence said 3 weeks ago vs what is going on with the weapons today. I don't care about what happened or what was said by Bush anytime before or since then considering that has no relevance to the question I have.

 

[TravisT]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TravisT

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TravisT
Okay, but it was said that there was no sign that he was making weapons, there was no sign he had them....

But now this comes out. This contradicts what the intelligence said a few weeks ago. Am I wrong?

These were known secondary, high-density explosives that had been marked by the IAEA. These are not WMDs. These are not weapons that constituted a violation of the ceasefire agreement.

ahhh, okay. It still is suprising that intelligence blew these weapons, regardless of whether they can be classified as WMD's or not, off. Obviously, these are a threat or we wouldn't be concerned about the weapons being in the hands of Al Qaeda.

Of course they are a threat! A small amount of this stuff is what took down that Pan Am flight over Lockerbie.

You got a link for that? I realize that fantasy doesn't come with a URL, but just maybe?

The bomb that took down that Pan Am flight was made of Semtex, which is comprised of an RDX and PETN

http://kreten.8m.com/new/semtex.htm

If 45 pounds killed 270 people, what will 300 tons do? What classifies as WMD's and what does not? In my opinion, 45 pounds of this stuff at one point could have been classified as a WMD by the sound of this. Again, i'm not trying to use this thread as flamebait, but according to this, the intelligence had to be wrong yet again 3 weeks ago.

 

[Czar]

These explosives = Known by everyone, sealed by the IAEA, not WMD's

What Iraq was accused of having = Stockpiles of WMD's

not the same thing travis

 

[Czar]

What classifies as WMD's and what does not?
Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons