Where was this talk before?

[conjur]

Originally posted by: 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

I'd say Condor has been rendered flightless.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TravisT
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.

A WMD is nuclear, chemical, or biological. Something that can spread destruction for miles and miles around.

A ton of Semtex would be like a big-ass MOAB. It would obliterate everything in its area and leave on hellacious crater but it would not have lingering effects. Also, a ton of it is going to consume a large amount of space.

 

[TravisT]

I just don't understand why it is okay for Saddam to have these weapons but not chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons... I can understand the after-effects are much different. But from my point of view, these things in the hands of Saddam were also very dangerous. I have been under the impression that there was absolutely nothing found over there except for maybe a few guns.

Anyhow, thanks guys for clearing this up. Even if I do disagree with it, i do see all of your point of views on this.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: TravisT
I just don't understand why it is okay for Saddam to have these weapons but not chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons... I can understand the after-effects are much different. But from my point of view, these things in the hands of Saddam were also very dangerous. I have been under the impression that there was absolutely nothing found over there except for maybe a few guns.

Anyhow, thanks guys for clearing this up. Even if I do disagree with it, i do see all of your point of views on this.

It was OK under the terms of the cease-fire agreed to by the UN and Iraq, with US approval, at the end of the Gulf War. If we had left Iraq completely disarmed, Iran would have overrun it in short order. In essence, Iraq had conventional weapons for the same reason we Americans have massive amounts of all types of WMDs and conventional weapons.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TravisT
I just don't understand why it is okay for Saddam to have these weapons but not chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons... I can understand the after-effects are much different. But from my point of view, these things in the hands of Saddam were also very dangerous. I have been under the impression that there was absolutely nothing found over there except for maybe a few guns.

Anyhow, thanks guys for clearing this up. Even if I do disagree with it, i do see all of your point of views on this.

Well, the sanctions and the ceasefire didn't demand Saddam completely dismantle all forms of a military. Certain weapons systems, explosives, munitions, etc. were allowed. Some of them being allowed as they were dual-use, meaning they could be used for non-aggressive applications.

 

[TranceNation]

Originally posted by: TravisT
I just don't understand why it is okay for Saddam to have these weapons but not chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons... I can understand the after-effects are much different. But from my point of view, these things in the hands of Saddam were also very dangerous. I have been under the impression that there was absolutely nothing found over there except for maybe a few guns.

Anyhow, thanks guys for clearing this up. Even if I do disagree with it, i do see all of your point of views on this.

Travis, honestly, how old are you?

 

[Pliablemoose]

There was considerable discussion between the inspectors as to wether or not to allow the explosives in question to remain, they are a "dual use" explosive.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: TravisT
I just don't understand why it is okay for Saddam to have these weapons but not chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons... I can understand the after-effects are much different. But from my point of view, these things in the hands of Saddam were also very dangerous. I have been under the impression that there was absolutely nothing found over there except for maybe a few guns.

Anyhow, thanks guys for clearing this up. Even if I do disagree with it, i do see all of your point of views on this.

glad you keep an open mind
I agree that its somehow strange that so much was sealed by the IAEA and thats it, nothing else was done, but thats impossible to say at the moment why since there has been no discussions on that subject


the rest, the definition of wmd's, that everyone knew about them these are all facts, not opinions that can be disagreed with

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
There was considerable discussion between the inspectors as to wether or not to allow the explosives in question to remain, they are a "dual use" explosive.

just about everything is "dual use"

but do you have a link to that discussion, would like to read more about it

 

[fjord]

WsMD have a very specific definition based on the relevant UN resolutions, vis-a-vis Iraq post 1992.

The key point to the definition of WsMD is the method of delivery. Basically we are talking about mid-range missiles or better.

Nerve gas or other chemical and biological weapons as well as explosives do not fall under the definition of a WMD.

The key to understanding WsMD is the method of delivery--and its range.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: fjord
WsMD have a very specific definition based on the relevant UN resolutions, vis-a-vis Iraq post 1992.

The key point to the definition of WsMD is the method of delivery. Basically we are talking about mid-range missiles or better.

Nerve gas or other chemical and biological weapons as well as explosives do not fall under the definition of a WMD.

The key to understanding WsMD is the method of delivery--and its range.

This is incorrect. WMDs used to be known as NBC, because they consist of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. The method of delivery is irrelevant to determining whether something is a weapon of mass destruction.

 

[Martin]

I am with you Travis, these stupid liberals can't understand that Saddam had weapons and needed to be disarmed. I mean, here is a freaking picture of Saddam with a WMD (just imagine what several million of those can do!!!!) and still, they persist Iraq not having WMDs.

 

[fjord]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: fjord
WsMD have a very specific definition based on the relevant UN resolutions, vis-a-vis Iraq post 1992.

The key point to the definition of WsMD is the method of delivery. Basically we are talking about mid-range missiles or better.

Nerve gas or other chemical and biological weapons as well as explosives do not fall under the definition of a WMD.

The key to understanding WsMD is the method of delivery--and its range.

This is incorrect. WMDs used to be known as NBC, because they consist of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. The method of delivery is irrelevant to determining whether something is a weapon of mass destruction.

I stand corrected.

Been awhile since Resolution 867. Old age and Tequila are not a good combination.

In addition Missiles 150Km range. Etc.