lack of conservative intellectuals

[bishop]

it's getting harder and harder to decipher intellectual responses between your hate-filled comments. like this macho-man nonsense (to use one of your favorite words):

And bishop, there is a point where you have to stop being a pansy and show that you mean business.

i can almost feel my nuts shrinking...

Once again, you missed the point. It is a straw man. If WMDs were the only reason we went to war, then yes, lack of (lots, he did have some chemical weapons and the program to produce more, but those are inconvenient facts) of WMDs would invalidate this war.

the majority of the public (here and across the world) doesn't believe it to be a straw man. and speaking of putting words in peoples' mouths, re-read my posts, i said wmd were the MAIN reason, not the ONLY reason.

What flip flopping?

heh, i guess i must've been dreaming when i heard bush say he opposed nation building once upon a time. now that he's doing it, the term can be conveniently labelled as meaningless, and bush's previous statements as irrelevant. yes, it's definitely flip-flopping.

What? This arguement makes no sense. Do you not understand what pre-emption is all about? It is about removing potential threats BEFORE they become an imminent threat.

if that's the case, then bush should've attacked n. korea and iran a long time ago. i could be wrong, but they sure seem close to becoming truly imminent threats - much more than iraq ever did. he could've also attacked syria for its ties to terrorism and wmd.

at what point in the master plan do we get to invade another country? all of this post-war stuff is getting tediously boring - i want to see more shock and awe on the news. i'm sure you'd rather have another war so that you don't have to continue defending bush's b.s. in iraq. we need to stop being pansies and show the world what we're all about, right? more war, it's good for everybody! :)

[Comrade]

[quote=bishop,]it's getting harder and harder to decipher intellectual responses between your hate-filled comments. like this macho-man nonsense (to use one of your favorite words):

It isn't macho man nonsense. It is called deterrent. A deterrent is useless if the other side doesn't believe you will enforce. MY hate filled comments?


the majority of the public (here and across the world) doesn't believe it to be a straw man. and speaking of putting words in peoples' mouths, re-read my posts, i said wmd were the MAIN reason, not the ONLY reason.
Then if you realize they aren't the only reason, how can you say that Saddam not having WMDs invalidates the war?


heh, i guess i must've been dreaming when i heard bush say he opposed nation building once upon a time. now that he's doing it, the term can be conveniently labelled as meaningless, and bush's previous statements as irrelevant. yes, it's definitely flip-flopping.
Since when have I been Bush? I don't care what he said, and I don't speak for him. To me, the term has always been irrelevant, and was introduced to me after the war began.


if that's the case, then bush should've attacked n. korea and iran a long time ago. i could be wrong, but they sure seem close to becoming truly imminent threats - much more than iraq ever did. he could've also attacked syria for its ties to terrorism and wmd.

No, this is another non sequitur. Using force against Saddam doesn't prove that we need to use force against everyone else. We used force against Saddam because
1) Nothing else had worked
2) We knew we could easily beat his army
3) He had nothing to deter us, like NK's nukes.


at what point in the master plan do we get to invade another country? all of this post-war stuff is getting tediously boring - i want to see more shock and awe on the news. i'm sure you'd rather have another war so that you don't have to continue defending bush's b.s. in iraq. we need to stop being pansies and show the world what we're all about, right? more war, it's good for everybody!

I'm not defending Bush's B.S., I'm attacking pacifists' BS. And again the non sequitur that because we used force to get the ball rolling (and you also refused to address my comments about how 9-11 was what got us involved in the Middle East this time around) we have to use force on everyone else.

we didn't need to get into this mess. america was not in immediate or present danger from the iraqi administration. saddam had no real WMDs, unless he lost some of the ones we sold him in the 1980's.

iraq invading kuwait in 1990 is worth US intervention, but iraq... doing nothing... is not worth US action.

where's the iraq-al qaeda link? osama hated saddam and what he stood for.

[Comrade]

Dobbs, it is sometimes amazing how people can not comprehend...

Yes, we didn't need to get into this mess. But some crazies decided to drive some planes into some buildings, so it was decided that we need to get rid of radical Islam, which is very prominent in the Arab world.

Iraq happens to be an Arab country. As a matter of fact, it is an Arab country that has been weakened severely, and ousting its dictator would be fairly easy. Yes? A democratic Arab country would be an asset in democratizing, or at least secularizing neighboring Arab countries, therefore nullifying the radical Muslim threat. Following me so far?

Secondly, you also managed to miss the whole thing about what pre-emption is for. It removes potential threats that are likely to become "immediate or present" threats. Do you wait until Pearl Harbor happens before you decide to deal with the people who intend to harm you?

I'm glad you know Osama so well. You still refuse to believe there was an Iraq-Al Qaida link? Even after the 9-11 report, the meetings in Sudan, the Iraqi intelligence chief who was also in Al Qaida, the Ansar al-Islam camp...

You also assume Al Qaida is the "final boss" and our only enemy. No. Wishful thinking, maybe.

after bush's advisors said on 9-12 that no evidence pointed to iraq, that we should have checked out the saudis and the iranians? after bush said, no i don't care, tell them iraq did it?

GTFO.

just because some nuts commit an act of terrorism does not mean we have a blank check to make war on anyone bush doesn't like. and it certainly doesn't mean we can or should attempt to eliminate the deep cultural roots of an entire religion and people.

make your cultural war elsewhere, and don't send me the bill. you make me sick.

[m5lange1]

I will admit there were some ties with Al-Qaeda and Iraq.
If nothiing else ALL of the middle-eastern Muslum countries had a few.
Afganistan was obviously the big one. Made sense to go in there and route it out.

I have seen NO evidence that Iraq had contact on a par with Saudi Arabia or Iran. Certainly no more.

If we are claiming we are in Iraq BECAUSE of its ties to Al-Qaeda we have some serious questions to answer why we are not also attacking Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and Iran.

If I am wrong all I want is comparitive evidence showing Saddam's Iraq had MORE connections to Al-Qaeda than the countries we are leaving alone. If ANY county besides Afganistan shows more answer me this...
Why are we not there too?

[Comrade]

Who said Iraq did it?

You are correct. When some nuts commit an act of terrorism, we have a blank check to "make war" on the threat, in this case, Arab, Muslim extremism.

Did I ask for a "culture war"? I certainly didn't say, "Hey, Muslims, I really want you to attack us!"

I make YOU sick? Because I disagree with you, or are you just hating?

[Comrade]

Lange...

The BIG PICTURE.

Am I not getting through? Democracy in Iraq isn't the final goal but the second step.

"You are correct. When some nuts commit an act of terrorism, we have a blank check to "make war" on the threat, in this case, Arab, Muslim extremism."

you are retaliating against the entire culture, the entire region, the entire people. who dunnit? al qaeda. 19 people. there might be 5000 more out there. they are civilians.

if the Hells Angels bombed Big Ben you would respond with an invasion of America.

you are causing more problems and spreading more hate and destruction, not less, than is justified.

[Comrade]

Again, not listening.
Al Qaida is not the root of the problem, exteme Islam is. That is the point.

If Hell's Angels bombed Big Ben would I respond with an invasion of America? If I were British?

Well, let's see, if America was a breeding ground for terrorists, and the Islamic dictator of America continued to forment hate of Britain, and I had the means to "invade" America and replace its dictator with a democracy, and then use a democratic America to assault the terrorist breeding grounds in Mexico and Canada, then yes.

How is spreading democracy spreading hate? I guess we see who believes in freedom and who doesn't.

Are you really trying to tell me that they have a right to be a threat? That we shouldn't act to defend ourselves?

[Yankeefan21]

Al-Queda and Saddam TRIED to have ties but Bin Laden and Saddam could not get along due to the fact that Bin Laden was pissed at Saddam for encouraging a situation (Kuwait invasion) which brought the American "een-fee-dels" (infedels) over to Arab land.

So when we say there were "ties" let's not hint that Saddam was secretly working with Al-Queda to pull off 9-11

They HATE eachother and Bin Laden is grateful to Bush for getting rid of that Socialist madman who took such pleasure in slaughtering Muslims like cattle.

"If Hell's Angels bombed Big Ben would I respond with an invasion of America? If I were British?"

i would not vote for that invasion. you did. and you seem to have voted for the invasion of the entire culture of islam.

perhaps books and flowers would have done a better job than bullets and bombs.

[Comrade]

The entire culture of Islam? Did you miss all those times I said radical Islam?

Books and flowers would do a better job if radical Islamists had any interest in peace.

[bishop]

It isn't macho man nonsense. It is called deterrent. A deterrent is useless if the other side doesn't believe you will enforce.

i guess forcing in renewed inspections and placing thousands of troops on iraq's border, aside from daily bombings, wasn't proof enough that we were serious. my mistake, i thought that having a credible deterrent was the reason why iraq agreed to the resumption of inspections to begin with.

Then if you realize they aren't the only reason, how can you say that Saddam not having WMDs invalidates the war?

because wmd's were the MAIN reason. i would never supported the war solely on the democracy argument, and neither would have the rest of the country - and we certainly would've been completely alone in our crusade. further, if bush wasn't sure about the links to al qaeda, stockpiles of wmd, active wmd programs, etc., then he should have NEVER spoken as if these guesses were facts. and, he should not have allowed members of his administration to make statements like, "we know where the wmd are.". pardon me for believing in accountability.

To me, the term has always been irrelevant, and was introduced to me after the war began.

you just began following politics after the war began? this term means a lot to conservative intellectuals.. obviously not neocons, but are they really conservatives? more like fascists imo.

No, this is another non sequitur. Using force against Saddam doesn't prove that we need to use force against everyone else.

yeah? we sure seem to be making great progress as far as n. korea and iran are concerned. sure seems to me that we scared the hell out of syria as well - put all sorts of pressure on them to secure their border and cut aid to terrorist groups. color me impressed.

and you also refused to address my comments about how 9-11 was what got us involved in the Middle East this time around) we have to use force on everyone else.

i refused nothing. you really think i'm incapable of debating you? it's no secret that 9/11 sent us back to the middle east. of course, there is no relationship between iraq and the events of 9/11. once again relying on the abstract since physical facts cannot support your arguments, eh?

we went into afghanistan because that regime actively supported al qaeda - the terrorist group that attacked us if you recall. but then after that we were at a crossroads.. the mantra coming out from the administration was correct - our biggest threat was wmd in the hands of regimes that would use them against us, or give them to terrorists to use against us. should we go after regimes that actively support terrorism like syria, saudi arabia, sudan or iran? do we go after regimes that were actively developing wmd like iran, n. korea and (suspected, but later proven false) iraq? was it the biggest supporter of terrorism? was it remotely close to developing wmd?

the neocons are the ones interested in restructuring the world in their grand scheme, not mainstream conservatives. us mainstream folk believe that if someone attacks us, like al qaeda harbored by the taliban, then we have every right (and a moral duty) to beat them down, regardless of what the congress or u.n. says. and if taking action truly protects our national interests, as it did in desert storm and the balkans, then it's also a just cause. but going into a war, based entirely on guesses about wmd, allegations about a connection with al qaeda, and abstract philosophic ideas about democracy throughout the middle east are pretty damn flakey. this isn't a course in political theory, this is the real world. even worse is the egg on the face you get when all the pre-war claims turn out to be bogus - sure makes it look like we should've just stuck with the inspections. and you dare say that i'm grasping for straws?

i can't wait to see your predictable responses when democracy in iraq fails.

people complain about "liberal elitism", but they think that going to war with an entire region with the intention of radically reforming it isn't elitism on a far grander scale. i like the circular logic there.

[Comrade]

Originally posted by bishop, i guess forcing in renewed inspections and placing thousands of troops on iraq's border, aside from daily bombings, wasn't proof enough that we were serious. my mistake, i thought that having a credible deterrent was the reason why iraq agreed to the resumption of inspections to begin with. Really? So you are saying Saddam was cooperating with inspections again? i would never supported the war solely on the democracy argument, Well, I guess that is the difference between you and me. I believe democracy is worth fighting for, and I also believe that a democratic country is an asset to us instead of a threat like a dictatorship is. you just began following politics after the war began? this term means a lot to conservative intellectuals.. obviously not neocons, but are they really conservatives? more like fascists imo. How original. Funny how every time anyone disagrees with anyone on the left, they are Nazis for expressing their opinions. No, I encountered the term nation building after the war began. I thought conservative intellectuals didn't exist, I thought all conservatives were dumb mouth breathing monster truck rally fans. yeah? we sure seem to be making great progress as far as n. korea and iran are concerned. sure seems to me that we scared the hell out of syria as well - put all sorts of pressure on them to secure their border and cut aid to terrorist groups. color me impressed. Hey! Good job, you realize that appeasement doesn't work! You have Carter to thank for Korea and Iran. i refused nothing. you really think i'm incapable of debating you? it's no secret that 9/11 sent us back to the middle east. of course, there is no relationship between iraq and the events of 9/11. once again relying on the abstract since physical facts cannot support your arguments, eh? No, once again you have gone back to the idea that Al Qaida is the source of the problem. should we go after regimes that actively support terrorism like syria, saudi arabia, sudan or iran? Yes! And Iraq is a step to doing that! This is what I have been saying! the neocons are the ones interested in restructuring the world in their grand scheme, not mainstream conservatives. I'm not talking about restructuring the world, I'm talking about removing radical Islam as a threat. We got rid of fascism in Germany, militaristic nationalism in Japan after they became threats to our nation. us mainstream folk believe that if someone attacks us, like al qaeda harbored by the taliban, then we have every right (and a moral duty) to beat them down, regardless of what the congress or u.n. says. and if taking action truly protects our national interests, as it did in desert storm and the balkans, then it's also a just cause. Yes. But going into a war, based entirely on guesses about wmd, allegations about a connection with al qaeda, and abstract philosophic ideas about democracy throughout the middle east are pretty damn flakey. Why is the idea of democracy in the Middle East flakey? Would you prefer we did nothing? This isn't a course in political theory, this is the real world. even worse is the egg on the face you get when all the pre-war claims turn out to be bogus Yeah, like millions of dead Iraqi children and thousands of casualties - sure makes it look like we should've just stuck with the inspections. and you dare say that i'm grasping for straws? How would inspections end the threat from the Middle East? Do you deny that the Middle East is where this threat comes from? i can't wait to see your predictable responses when democracy in iraq fails. What, we are hoping democracy fails in Iraq? It isn't going to fail in Iraq. Weren't you complaining about the military bases? How can you hope we fail in Iraq just to spite people who support Bush? people complain about "liberal elitism", but they think that going to war with an entire region Or a guy named Saddam and radical Islam with the intention of radically reforming it isn't elitism on a far grander scale. I guess you define elitism differently from me. I define elitism as the idea that someone is right because he thinks hes smarter, not because of any evidence or facts. This whole thread is about bashing conservatives for being "dumb" and "unintellectual." i like the circular logic there. Indeed

[Yankeefan21]

Would you like your tall glass of STFU with or without the lemon? He had them and he was hiding them from inspectors. There's no disputing it, no denying it, and no spinning it into an absence of massive stockpiles laying out in the open for coalition forces to find.

Ahh yes the Sarin gas argument. Amazing how you neo-cons are holding onto this one. These weren't weapons they were relics they were NOT wmd's.

They are leftovers from the Iraq-Iran war. They are worthy of museum display not as evidence.


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


IRAQ ROCKETS FOUND IN LATE JUNE TEST NEGATIVE FOR CHEMICALS

Baghdad, Iraq - On June 16, 2004, an Iraqi civilian led Polish Soldiers to two 122mm rockets he had found in Al Hillah.

The rounds were tested and showed positive for Sarin gas. It has been determined that the rounds were left over from the Iran-Iraq war.


link:

http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/news_re...se=20040705.txt

By the when are your friends at Fox News going to retract their article and admit they messed up?

I prefer my glass of STFU with lemon how do you take yours?

Guess again. I'm from my own playing field. Say, did you get so excited when you finally had that moment of self-esteem that you typed out "That's that" instead of "That's some?" Don't let me bring down your special feeling of identifying someone different than yourself and rejecting what they say. Not everyone can be you. I know I can't; I'm just an asshole with an open mind.

You may have an open mind but you offer no credible evidence that shows Kerry behaving in a manner which was "pro-war"

Once again show me in this passage which shows Kerry as being totally on Bush's side fully supporting war.



Whole speech:

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/upload...kerry-iraq.html

Put all the hefty facts on the table you want. The problem is they don't pertain to this issue of Kerry being "pro-war" all the way.

You're not on your own playing field. You're on the Bush playing field and for some reason (which would be nice if you would share) you're shilling strongly for Bush because you believe he is good for you or good the country. So don't play this "I'm an indenpedent thinker" crap.

And yes I will fully admit right here I'm a Kerry liberal Democrat so you know exactly what to expect out of me. (insert your smart-ass remark here)

At least you admit the truth. I spent pages trying to force the rest of your crowd to face it. Do you think you can get them on the same page? My friends back at Domino's aren't high schoolers. They are human beings and they have the right to work without Kerry or you fucking up their jobs. You aren't giving them your money. You are trying to give them someone else's money.

See the way it works is you raise the minimum wage and people like your friends still get to keep your jobs because by typical law of the market the first to be cut are high schoolers who really don't need the jobs as bad as older people, say like your friends, who have families and many bills as opposed to high schoolers just lookin to make some extra cash so they don't have to beg mommy and daddy for everything.

This is why I worked at Domino's when I was 19.

Raising the minimum wage to at least match inflation is NOT advocating taking away their right to work.

suggest you read the former failed attempts to argue with me... http://www.volconvo.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2089 ...because you, like everyone else, will fail.

Wow well we just got someone from the O'Reilly school of debating here don't we? buddy I already got you behind in this post alone.

You're using bully tactics to push your point of view NOT the facts, and maybe the overblown ego act works with your wife or people smaller than you do but it ain't working here.

So we should send felons to school? Why not. Same shit different building. Look, the point was that Kerry would continue to force us to pay for this failing system. Just because you like being told what to do by the government doesn't mean everyone else does. Ok?

No we don't send felons to school, but you see if they get an education early in life the likelyhood of them going to prison is far lower isn't it? and this is a far better investment for our nation and far cheaper too!

So because I advocate investing in schools and trying to strengthen public education that means I do everything the government tells me.

I take it you are strongly against the government constantly telling you to be on alert with all these terror warnings correct? since you hate the government always trying to tell you what to do?

imple. If Kerry is elected, he will do the exact same thing as Clinton: absolutely nothing. They could topple the Statue of Liberty and Kerry would put his fingers in his ears and pretend the middle east doesn't exist. Maybe he'll let Bin Laden go like his predecessor too, that is if anyone catches him again.

Actually I think he'd behave differently than Bush did on 9-11.

By the way those responsible for the first WTC bombing are currently rotting in prison.

Yes. He wants the UN to rule America. He wants the UN to tax America, to tell America when it can go to war, and to rewrite it's laws. If the UN is going to do all these things, then what good is voting? Most people will not dispute these facts, rather the norm for your crowd is to say "What's wrong with that" and then proceed to nag about the evils of western imperialism. I thought imperialism was trying to control a country with unelected officials.

What facts? they're facts because you say so? it is a fact that Kerry wants the UN to rule America because you say so?

Wow your ability to argue is really really shining here.

Let me translate Kerry's lies for you. "I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as President." "I protested against this country as a young man and I will protest against it as President." "Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required." "Unless foreign troops step foot on our soil, terrorists may do as they please." "Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response." "I will immediately take a vacation upon the United States being attacked." or "I will order the seizure of guns so that Arab-Americans are not killed." and probably "I will ask the UN to find the terrorists and bring them to justice." "I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security." "I will give the UN full authority to decide when we go to war." "And I will build a stronger American military." "I will cut military spending."

Again you said so so it must be true! no evidence nothing, I wish I could argue as well as you.

By the way, nice try with the attempt to persuade me that we are plumetting towards a dark form of socialism. Hahaha, you tried to argue for minimum wage. Who do you think you're fooling? You aren't on my side.

So minimum wage is evil but giving corporations corporate welfare and huge tax cuts even when they outsource core competencies is okay with you?

This is a sinister form of socialism only it works in favor of corporations and the rich instead of for the people.

[Mr.Vicchio]

This thread is a joke right?

Right?

Ounumbered on forums? Only forum likes this one where Bush hate and "progressive" Ideals are regualarly given the spot light and more conservative threads get butterfaced because of biased moderation.

I can point you to 2 active forums I know of that are more conservative then liberal.

I can lead you to, my favorite leftwing site, a web site populated by tolerant, diversity loving , progressivly thinking individuals that welcome anyone who agrees with them, and demonize and ban those that do not.

Seriously this has to be one of the funniest thread I have ever seen.

[bishop]

Really? So you are saying Saddam was cooperating with inspections again?

yes, not perfectly, and he certainly would've rather not, but he was cooperating nonetheless. inspections were continuous and a much better alternative to war - especially when there was no threat of imminent attack.

Well, I guess that is the difference between you and me. I believe democracy is worth fighting for, and I also believe that a democratic country is an asset to us instead of a threat like a dictatorship is.

it's worth fighting for our own democracy, not to fight to impose democracy. the jury's still out in iraq. what i see over there is a puppet government circling around a fledgling strongman that the iraqi public does not support.

How original. Funny how every time anyone disagrees with anyone on the left, they are Nazis for expressing their opinions.

not nazis, fascists. i hope you do understand the difference. also, i don't mean it as a direct insult, what bush is doing similar to fascist behavior.

Hey! Good job, you realize that appeasement doesn't work! You have Carter to thank for Korea and Iran.

what does that have to do with BUSH's response to n. korea and iran? spare us the rhetoric.

No, once again you have gone back to the idea that Al Qaida is the source of the problem.

is a lack of democracy the problem, or is widespread ignorance and oppression the problem? also, isn't the saudi sponsored wahhabiist cult also part of the problem? and, if you claim that democracy is the answer, then you must be glad to see the saudis, iranians, kuwaitis and everyone else in that region clamping down on their populations more than usual. isn't pakistan's president a dictator as well who gave n. korea nuclear technology? oopsie! all sorts of inconsistencies to your pro-democracy argument, because it's a completely academic solution to a real-world problem.

before we go to reshape the world, we could at least go after the terrorists and wmd first. just in case they don't buy our koombaya pro-democracy slogans.

Yes! And Iraq is a step to doing that! This is what I have been saying!

how long do we have to wait until we get our next war? i already told you that i want to see more shock and awe on my tv.

I'm not talking about restructuring the world, I'm talking about removing radical Islam as a threat. We got rid of fascism in Germany, militaristic nationalism in Japan after they became threats to our nation.

the hell you aren't.. just earlier you're talking about how we ought to go around and force democratic change on all the countries in the middle east. now you're trying to say that you aren't talking about restructuring the world.. which one is it???

Why is the idea of democracy in the Middle East flakey? Would you prefer we did nothing?

did we attack germany or japan with the intention of making them democratic? did we fight with n. korea or vietnam, or in the balkans, somalia, iraq (in desert storm) to make them democratic countries? NOPE. out of all those examples, the only one that was based on a theory (and a lie) was vietnam - the domino theory. iraq was also based on a theory, and bogus intelligence that some choose to say was a lie. the idea of democracy is flakey because it is an intangible and we cannot determine its success. in fact, the harder we try at forcing it, the more likely it is that we'll fail.

Yeah, like millions of dead Iraqi children and thousands of casualties - sure makes it look like we should've just stuck with the inspections. and you dare say that i'm grasping for straws?

i don't give a good god damn about the iraqi children or the people saddam killed. you are not talking to a peace and love hippie here. i am a conservative and a republican. that sort of reasoning isn't persuasive whatsoever, but nice try in playing the moral card.

How would inspections end the threat from the Middle East? Do you deny that the Middle East is where this threat comes from?

i thought the u.n. sent the inspectors there to remove the primary threat - wmd's. there are lots of threats in the world.. some of them live in asia, africa and south america - not just the middle east.

What, we are hoping democracy fails in Iraq? It isn't going to fail in Iraq. Weren't you complaining about the military bases? How can you hope we fail in Iraq just to spite people who support Bush?

i'm not hoping we fail, i'm expecting that we will fail. everything bush touches turns to shit, so why would this be any different? they didn't even have a post-war plan for christ's sake, and when they finally did make one, they changed it several times (along with our liasons) - and somehow i'm supposed to believe that now things will work out just fine.

I guess you define elitism differently from me. I define elitism as the idea that someone is right because he thinks hes smarter, not because of any evidence or facts. This whole thread is about bashing conservatives for being "dumb" and "unintellectual."

you aren't basing your arguments either evidence or fact. you're basing it on abstract, radical theory of reshaping an entire region in our image.

[Knightpass]

[quote=Yankeefan21,]

Would you like your tall glass of STFU with or without the lemon? He had them and he was hiding them from inspectors. There's no disputing it, no denying it, and no spinning it into an absence of massive stockpiles laying out in the open for coalition forces to find.

Ahh yes the Sarin gas argument. Amazing how you neo-cons are holding onto this one. These weren't weapons they were relics they were NOT wmd's.

Your argument is so bogus. Now you're changing the definition of WMD and weapons, etc ("Moving the goalposts"). In order to try to deny the obvious. A Mortar shell with sarin was fired on our troops. The sarin agent didnt cause massive casualties only becauise the sarin nglected to mix properly upon detonation. And another shell was found rigged as a bomb.

They are WMD's since sarin was found on them. Yes, they were weapons. Doesnt matter how old they are.

(A 200 year old musket is still a weapon. A Ten year old mortar shell (with or without sarin), is still a weapon.

But I digress, it seems that these shells (the ones I'm talking about) were a little more newer than the first gulf war:

Iraq never declared any binary 155mm artillery shells. In fact, they never claimed any filled with sarin at all in the UNSCOM Final report (Find on "Munitions declared by Iraq as remaining"). Not declared as existing at the end of the Gulf War, not having been destroyed in the Gulf War, not having been destroyed unilaterally. The only binary munitions claimed by the Iraqis were aerial bombs and missile warheads. Not in an artillery shell.

According to this UNSCOM factsheet (PDF):
http://editors.sipri.se/pubs/Factsheet/UNSCOM.pdf

Iraqi CW agents were not comparable in quality to those stored in the arsenals of the USA and the former USSR, however. Impurities meant that the toxic compounds lacked stability and easily decomposed; as a consequence, Iraq developed a crude type of binary munition, whereby the final mixing of the two precursors to the agent was done inside the munition just before delivery. This had a major impact on the logistics of and preparations for chemical warfare, which may partly explain how overwhelming coalition air superiority prevented the use of CW during Operation Desert Storm.

This isn't stuff left over from the Iran/Iraq war, even if that had any significance (he didn't have WMDs because they were old?).

"General Kimmitt said the shell could be several years old. Nerve agents stored in binary shells can be stored for long periods of time, and are relatively harmless as long as the chemicals are not mixed."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/17/internat...2015a11&ei=5070

They are leftovers from the Iraq-Iran war. They are worthy of museum display not as evidence.

They are not worthy of a museum display. It is evidence. Ask a soldier what would happen to them if one of those "relics" was launched at them and fell on their heads.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE IRAQ ROCKETS FOUND IN LATE JUNE TEST NEGATIVE FOR CHEMICALS Baghdad, Iraq - On June 16, 2004, an Iraqi civilian led Polish Soldiers to two 122mm rockets he had found in Al Hillah. The rounds were tested and showed positive for Sarin gas. It has been determined that the rounds were left over from the Iran-Iraq war. link: http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/news_re...se=20040705.txt By the when are your friends at Fox News going to retract their article and admit they messed up?

When are you going to admit that you havent a clue as to what you're talking about. You're talking about 122mm rockets, and Fox news was talking about 155mm shells

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html


Note the ever so subtle slight of hand. One poster brings up "sarin", so Yankee here cherry picks out an article (actually his DU friends provide for him) a completely different story.

There WAS sarin gas found, not with the 122mm Rockets, but with 155mm shells. That article talks about 122mm rockets being tested negative for sarin (though the article also says that traces are found too, so it's a bit confusing). The sarin was found with the 155 mortar shells:

Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said he believed that insurgents who planted the explosive did not know it contained the nerve agent. The 155-mm shell did not have markings to indicate it contained a chemical agent, a U.S. official said.

He said a U.S. military convoy discovered the round, which had been rigged as an explosive device. A detonation took place before soldiers could make the bomb inoperable, producing "a very small dispersal of agent."

U.S. officials believe, based on evidence, that the shell was an experimental munition produced before the 1991 Gulf War, called a binary type - a bomb carrying two separate chemicals that when combined in an explosion, produce sarin.

Dispersal would be far more effective if a shell containing nerve agent were fired from an artillery piece, Kimmitt said.

Even so, it appears that two components in the shell that exploded Saturday did not properly mix upon detonation, the U.S. official said.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,1331..._051804,00.html

I prefer my glass of STFU with lemon how do you take yours?

Why not try your own ideas and conclusions instead of getting your friends over at DU to provide your talking points for you? They're just misleading you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...ess=104x2183878


The Sound of Silence: Iraq's WMDs Found

After spending more than a year attacking the Bush administration daily for their supposed failure to produce the WMDs that everyone -- including the United Nations, as well as most leading Democrats -- believed Saddam had hidden, the Left has suddenly gone strangely silent on the subject. The "mainstream" media has been tiptoeing around the discovery of a 155-mm mortar shell containing Sarin gas in Iraq, the contents of which have been confirmed. The shell was used as part of an improvised explosive device (IED) on a road near the Baghdad International Airport, and exploded as it was being disarmed.

The shell contained three liters of Sarin -- nearly a gallon. It was a type of shell designed to mix chemical components during flight, which was why the explosion didn't kill anyone (though two soldiers were treated for exposure). Three liters of Sarin is enough, if the components are mixed properly, to realistically kill hundreds, and potentially thousands. A concentration of 100 milligrams of Sarin per cubic meter of air is enough to constitute a lethal dose for half the people breathing it within one minute.


http://guardian.blogdrive.com/archive/cm-0...y-2004_o-0.html

[Yankeefan21]

Your argument is so bogus. Now you're changing the definition of WMD and weapons, e