Bush Lied!!

[lickmyballssuckmy]

Anyone who researched this for themselves knew about this years ago but for those who like to ignore reality and keep repeating the mantra that WMD didn't and don't exist.. Oh well..

http://washingtontimes.com/national/...4414-3312r.htm

Can't wait to see all the new reasons why Saddam should be in and Bush should be out. Can Oslin come out and play? Rock? Bueller? Bueller?

[slugymay]

just out of curiosity, when did chemical weapons become weapons of mass destruction?

[ooda]

Good.

I'm so fucking sick of people that focus just on the mistakes (this is debatable, but personally I think it could have been handled better) that were made when initiating the war. They seem to disregard the fact that Saddam was a bad guy, and how somehow it doesn't help things with him out of Iraq. He had weapons, and while they were not found in the way that was expected, he still was doing wrong, and this is a small way of proving it.

I may be naive, but personally I think we're a better place without him.

[ooda]

Originally Posted by slugymay

just out of curiosity, when did chemical weapons become weapons of mass destruction?

They always were. Just because a weapon can kill many people while not destroying buildings and whatnot at the same time, it does not mean that it is not a weapon of mass destruction.

[unknownsoldier]

A Pentagon official who confirmed the findings to Agence France-Presse that all the weapons were pre-1991 munitions "in such a degraded state they couldn't be used for what they are designed for

So Iraq HAD chemical weapons, in 1991. in 2001 all they had were boxes with scrap metal in them.

Everybody knew that pre-1991 Iraq had chemical weapons because we were SELLING them to Iraq. Nobody was in doubt. The debate was whether they STILL HAD so called "WMDS". In order to proove that the government did a few things

1. Tried to convince us that the conventional weapons were unaccounted for
2. Tried to convince us that Iraq was developing NEW weapons

Nobody was in any doubt as to whether Iraq had a warehouse somewhere with boxes of what USED TO BE chemical weapons, and nobody cared.

Were WMD's found in Iraq? NO.

2500 and counting.

oh and ooda, just so you realise how ridiculous what you are saying is, sarin has a shelf life of a few months.

[slugymay]

Originally Posted by ooda

They always were. Just because a weapon can kill many people while not destroying buildings and whatnot at the same time, it does not mean that it is not a weapon of mass destruction.

Chemical weapons were never considered weapons of mass destruction until 2001-2, when they were labeled as such to bolster the reason for invasion. show me i am wrong and you will win an apology.

[da_ticklah]

patiently waiting on Spooky to defend 'dubya'

[spooky]

Originally Posted by da_ticklah

patiently waiting on Spooky to defend 'dubya'

/yawn.

theres no convincing people who still argue the WMD point.

no matter what, its a fact he had them and used them at one time.

no matter what, he was willing to attack other nations.

no matter what, he broke the cease fire by not allowing weapons inspectors in.

thats enough for me. out of a dozen or so points, people like to hang their hat on WMDs and saddams links not to terrorism in general and against the US, which is factual and well documented, but DIRECT links to the specific terrorists responsible for a specific terrorist attack on the US.

short of saddam piloting one of the planes into the twin towers and the US finding and reporting hundreds or thousands of tons on chemical and biological weapons, ready to use, some just wont be convinced. and at this late date, even if those were found to be true, the arguement would be we didnt know when we went in by half, and the other half would argue that it was planted or fabricated by the US government.

though im not a fan of dubya, he doesnt need to account for himself and his actions any further. people just need to lay off the kool aid and realize the other party isnt evil, isnt the enemy, hell bent on ruling or destroying the world or its population.

patiently waiting on da_ticklah to tell me im wrong

[ooda]

Originally Posted by unknownsoldier

oh and ooda, just so you realise how ridiculous what you are saying is, sarin has a shelf life of a few months.

How?

Just because they are not as volatile as they once were, there's a big difference in having those munitions, even if they are in there current states of disrepair, and having those weapons destroyed. If they are destroyed, it's at least some sort of admission of guilt.

And just based on the UN Resolution 687, Sarin is considered a chemical weapon, and as such it is classified as a weapon of mass destruction, meaning that the stockpiling and production of it is outlawed, with the resolution passed in 1991.

Looking at the resolution, the resolution is ratified by a country when the weapons in question are disarmed under international supervision. Just because a weapon has decayed due to not being used, does not somehow make the problem irrelevant.

Personally, if they didn't at least make a show of destroying these old weapons that were lying around, then I doubt that new weapons that were developed will be as readily destroyed.

Oh no, I get it. Even though Saddam has a harsh exterior, he is actually a marshmellow in side. It must be the way that he has mellowed over the years that means he is no longer a threat.

Resolution 687

Originally Posted by slugymay

Chemical weapons were never considered weapons of mass destruction until 2001-2, when they were labeled as such to bolster the reason for invasion. show me i am wrong and you will win an apology.

Wrong.

The United Nations considers chemical weapons to be weapons of mass destruction, and in 1993 the Chemical Weapons Convention was adopted. I'm looking for the 2001-2 date you are talking about, and I will correct what I said when I find what you're talking about.

Weapons of Mass Destruction (UN)

[ooda]

And on a side note, I love how so much logic is used to explain why it's wrong that Iraq was invaded, but how at the same time, the counterpoint about how the invasion is justified receives no such attention.