What really fucks up threads is when people on high horses run with "You're so fucking stupid" for pages at a time.

6/23/2006 1:09:03 PM

in other news,

Quote :

" An old empty box of rat poison was found 50 miles outside of baghdad, still containing residual amounts of cyanide, a highly toxic substance. independent WMD experts agree that if this were converted to aerosol and dispersed over Peoria, Illinois, more than one person may die. the Bush Administration, while cautious about drawing conclusions, noted that the primary reason for invading Iraq was to remove such potential weapons of mass destruction from the agressive and unstable regime. meanwhile, several antique mustard gas shells were found in the region of Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany, in an old cellar, behind some cases of vintage Black Forest wine. "Clearly the posession of these WMD's by the Germans is a direct and blatant violation of the Treaty of Versailles, and the international community is very concerned," said a White House spokesperson. An anonymous source at the Pentagon said that all options were being considered, and a preliminary air strike against Berlin "was not off the table" DEVELOPING.... "

[Edited on June 23, 2006 at 1:14 PM. Reason : ]

6/23/2006 1:09:18 PM

^at least that has SOMETHING to do with the topic, regardless of if it calls out my point...at least its not just saying "you're dumb"thanks

6/23/2006 1:10:33 PM

It wasn't for you

I'd have to make a special olympics version

6/23/2006 1:10:55 PM

no sense in backtracking now

thanks for the award, i appreciate it

6/23/2006 1:11:18 PM

There really isn't anything to say more about the topic. Analyze your own quote:

Quote :

""While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal""

This doesn't really say anything. It doesn't say that the specific agents found in these bombs posed a serious and immediate danger to US servicemen. It just says chemical agents can kill, even after a long time. The same warning label is found on Radon cores for X-Ray machines and your Clorox cleaner.

Hardly a serious threat to US National security.

6/23/2006 1:13:01 PM

I've said it before and I'll say it again

Can we please get a Soap Box Thunderdome so that we don't have to read this?

TWO MAN ENTER, ONE MAN LEAVE

6/23/2006 1:13:06 PM

^^i agree it doesnt say they pose a serious and immediate threat to US troops

but it also implies they're not completely safe and harmless, which is what some people assumed just from reading the words "degrade over time"

6/23/2006 1:14:50 PM

Ahahahah

Christ

6/23/2006 1:15:17 PM

Basically it is vague enough where either side can feel justified using it for their argument.

6/23/2006 1:16:19 PM

i dont dismiss the other side...and im sure as hell glad they werent brand new nuclear arms or anything like that...i dont think the other side is completely stupid and ignorant and i dont dismiss the other side just because i have some retarded vendetta against a proponent of the other side

6/23/2006 1:17:05 PM

It's not vague.

6/23/2006 1:17:11 PM

Basically it is vague enough where either side can feel justified using it for their argument.

Case in point.

6/23/2006 1:18:48 PM

Quote :

"chemical agents remain hazardous"

yeah i guess that is pretty clear-cut, black and white, non-vague...i agree with you

6/23/2006 1:18:56 PM

Ugh you idiots are going to believe whatever you want. Nevermind.

6/23/2006 1:20:12 PM

chemical agents under your sink are hazardous

chemical agents under your sink are not weapons of mass destruction

6/23/2006 1:20:56 PM

so you'd have no problem if our soldiers were poisoned by chemical agents

as long as they're not WMD's, by your definition of WMDs?

i mean fuck it if 100 troops get his with mustard gas and die...at least it wasnt a WMD of mustard gas that killed 100 troops!

6/23/2006 1:21:20 PM

I read the article and was somewhat relieved that we had found them even though their age made them less of a threat. Basically the article was informative and left me with no opinion.

Then I watched you guys latch onto "agents degrade over time" and argue with those who latched onto "chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal".

All in all, this is one of the worst threads that I have ever read.

6/23/2006 1:22:41 PM

this thread, if you've forgotten, is about weapons of mass destruction

you'd like everyone to believe we found some

we haven't

6/23/2006 1:23:10 PM

Its known that chemicals degrade over time. How much they degraded can't be known without testing. Thats why reports put statements like that when giving stock of recovered munitions. Its about as useful as 'Terror code Orange' and basically means "take proper precautions." Those precautions, however, don't mean invading another country to take back the weapons we gave them three decades ago.

6/23/2006 1:23:21 PM

i just figured people who always complained about the loss of US troops' lives in the Iraq War, would take things like mustard gas and sarin gas, which can both kill people, a little more seriously...instead of just comparing them to household cleaners under a sink

6/23/2006 1:23:48 PM

You figured incorrectly

Probably because you're a fucking moron

6/23/2006 1:28:02 PM

The reason we don't take Mustard and Sarin gas seriously is because their WWI and WWII weapons, respectively. They're as much of a serious threat to our modern military as RPG's and AK's, both of which are easier to handle.

6/23/2006 1:30:00 PM

Why are you folks still responding to this clown? It's done, stick a fork in it.

6/23/2006 1:32:49 PM

Every now and then stupidity must be addressed thoroughly.

6/23/2006 1:33:50 PM

Quote :

"this thread, if you've forgotten, is about weapons of mass destruction you'd like everyone to believe we found some we haven't"

Remember the 17 year old kid from Cary, Jarrett Brown, that was charged with 24 counts of possession of a weapon of mass destruction? One for each pipe bomb the guy had. It all depends on how you define WMDs. In that case a WMD was one pipe bomb - a real stupid definition as I fail to see just how much "mass destruction" one could pull off with nothing more than a single pipe bomb but it just goes to show that anyone can pretty much claim anything as a WMD when the definition is so loose.

I'd also put old sarin and mustard gas - however old - above clorox on the list of potential WMDs.

6/23/2006 1:39:23 PM

Quote :

"They're as much of a serious threat to our modern military as RPG's and AK's, both of which are easier to handle."

easier to handle, yes...still a threat to our troops every day? yes...have US troops been killed from rocket propelled grenade and AK attacks in this war? yes

6/23/2006 1:44:25 PM

^^did we go to iraq to find pipe bombs?

did we go to iraq to find some old, degraded sarin gas buried in the sand?



[Edited on June 23, 2006 at 1:47 PM. Reason : .]

6/23/2006 1:45:56 PM

jwb...the things we found that you claim are not WMDs

how are they not pre-1991 WMD's

but i do agree the definition of a WMD is a loose one

still i wouldnt want to be unloading a "defunct WMD" and have a suicide bomber run up and blow himself up by the pre-1991 weapon and bust old sarin into the air

6/23/2006 1:47:13 PM

^^^ I think the point they were going for there was that RPGs and AKs can and have killed our troops and are easier to handle - so why would someone take the risk with a decade old nerve toxin when they could just keep doing what they are already doing.

[Edited on June 23, 2006 at 1:49 PM. Reason : our]

6/23/2006 1:48:33 PM

^fair enough, i hear that

i just still wouldnt be comfortable with those chemical agents in the hands of the enemies...however much "oomph" and effectiveness and strength they might have lost, they are still poisons that will hurt or kill people if exposed to them

6/23/2006 1:49:53 PM

Who all has access to the TreeTwista account, because the posts are sounding different from time to time, like a different person was posting.

6/23/2006 1:51:34 PM

Quote :

"easier to handle, yes...still a threat to our troops every day? yes...have US troops been killed from rocket propelled grenade and AK attacks in this war? yes"

Have they been killed from Sarin or Mustard gas?

6/23/2006 1:52:20 PM

^^maybe you are just blinded by your bias sometimes and when you calm down and read what i have to say and not necessarily all the other people talking shit to me you hear my side of the story better

in other words, maybe when McDanger isnt calling me dumb in 20 different ways in 20 different posts, its clear that i'm not as crazy as he thinks while he trolls me for no reason

^not that i know of, and i hope they arent, but its possible

6/23/2006 1:52:50 PM

In one sentence, this evidence is not sufficient enough to justify going to War with Iraq.

6/23/2006 1:55:01 PM

No you are dumb. You're citing a defunct weapon as qualifying for "the search for WMD's." We knew they had Mustard and Sarin gas since the Iran - Iraq war when those weapons were used. We didn't care about them in 1992, and we wouldn't care about them now save for the fact that there are no other "WMD's" coming out of Iraq.

You're dumb because you keep insisting that this constitutes a fair realization of our WMD fears.

[Edited on June 23, 2006 at 1:56 PM. Reason : >.<]

6/23/2006 1:56:02 PM

Quote :

"did we go to iraq to find pipe bombs? did we go to iraq to find some old, degraded sarin gas buried in the sand?"

Ha, no. I lean toward the whole WMD issue as being a contrived pretext to go to war but I'm still not naive enough to 100% rule out the possibility of there being some.

[Edited on June 23, 2006 at 1:59 PM. Reason : -]

6/23/2006 1:57:05 PM

^ Here's a clue. Some of us don't rule out the possibility of there having been WMDs either. But these sure as fuck aren't them.

6/23/2006 2:00:00 PM

The weapons that we sold them aren't the weapons we went in to find. I actually do believe they had WMD's and think that they were scuttled in the gulf, but these are clearly not the WMD's anyone was in search of.

6/23/2006 2:17:15 PM

you know, if this was so substatial, we'd probably be hearing a lot more about it, regardless of what you think of the media. As has been said, we knew there was gas and whatnot. Now where are the missles capable of delivering warheads and the other nuke material?

i mean, they had jets buried in the sand too. sure, they were old rusty MiG-5s from the USSR, but you could crash those things into a building and kill quite a few people!

6/23/2006 2:37:15 PM

Quote :

"so we find wmd's, however old and out of commission they are yet people are still denying that saddam ever had wmd's ridiculous"

i stopped reading after this point

are you serious?

6/23/2006 2:40:01 PM

yes i'm serious...some people actually said saddam never had wmd's...not even the ones he used on the kurds

6/23/2006 3:03:38 PM

Quote :

"i mean, they had jets buried in the sand too. sure, they were old rusty MiG-5s from the USSR, but you could crash those things into a building and kill quite a few people!"

wtf is a mig-5?

6/23/2006 3:11:23 PM

im pretty sure its a russian jet

dont know all the models but you remember top gun, for example? or any war movie or history channel special on the cold war?

the US has f-15's, f-14s, f-16s, f-22s, etc...i think russians have mig-3, mig-5, etc

6/23/2006 3:13:05 PM

So you're saying:

1. We never went to war with Iraq because of WMD
2. The shells that were found in the desert are evidence of WMD, which justifies the war in Iraq

am I missing something?

6/23/2006 3:15:12 PM

I know what a MiG is. I was just being a douche because there is no such thing as a MiG-5.

For the record, the MiG-28s from Top Gun don't exist either. They were F-5s with a red star painted on the tail.

6/23/2006 3:18:55 PM

^^no, i'm saying:

1. One of the 19 reasons the govt voted for us to go to war was WMDs...there were 18 other reasons that Congress agreed on

and even though that should answer your 2nd question

2. The shells are indeed evidence of WMDs, even though they are old...my stance on the pre-1991 WMDs that they found over the last couple years is not that they alone were reason enough to go to war...but I do know a lot of soldiers from Operation Desert Storm are still sick from the chemicals that Iraq used against them back then...I think people are downplaying the potential danger of the pre-1991 WMDs just because they are too broken down to be fired in their original and intended ways...theres still poison in them...and the government just admitted that in the PDF of the declassified part of the report that i've posted the link to a number of times

^haha ok

6/23/2006 3:19:38 PM

I really don't know of anyone who is denying that Saddam used mustard gas and biological agents during the Gulf War, liberal or otherwise. The question has never really been if Iraq has the capability to stockpile arms and WMD, the question has been finding them and whether or not Iraq would use them to attack the United States. Correct me if I'm wrong.

And I don't believe that finding a bunch of duds in the dunes is the smoking gun the Bush Administration was looking for.

[Edited on June 23, 2006 at 3:30 PM. Reason : asdf]

6/23/2006 3:29:58 PM