news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=...&printer=1 (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&u=/ap/20040517/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_sarin_2&printer=1)

sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...DT0555.DTL (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/a/2004/05/17/international1027EDT0555.DTL)

Maybe someone dug up his "destroyed" nerve gas rounds.

Fook Halo, i told you to burry it deeper!
-----

Btw, it sounds like some 20 year old artillery munition that they lost during the Gulf war.

At least, If a 'real' wmod explodes next to some peeps, 'no casualties' would be, well, a bit more.

'News of the discovery came hours after Iraqi Governing Council President Izzedine Salim was killed by a suicide bomber in central Baghdad, the U.S. Army said.

Salim, who was head of the Islamic Da'wah Movement in the southern city of Basra, was a key moderate on the U.S.-appointed, 25-member council.'

:(

LMAO lamascsi, you crack me up.

I'm certainly not a weapons expert, but from reading the article the sarin agent was in a binary form in the war head...

At least, If a 'real' wmod explodes next to some peeps, 'no casualties' would be, well, a bit more.

And the only reason it "explodes with no casualties" has more to do with the way it was delivered and not the fact that it was a pitiful excuse for a WMD. I highly suspect, had the warhead been properly launched with a trajectory, the binary agents would have properly been mixed enroute to its target, with far worse effects to those targeted on the ground.

But go ahead, excuse this away as you're wont to do. The simple fact that these things are available to our enemies (could just as easily been available to Saddam or some other terrorists for cash) completely redeems the Iraqi invasion a year ago.

HAHA WE ALL KNOW THERE ARE NO MORE WOMD IN IRAQ! I BET YOU STILL BELIEVE THERE ARE LOLZ!

THEY WOULDN'T BURY THEM TO HIDE THEM!

Next you'll be telling us Saddam didn't keep records of where that stuff was buried.

/em thinks back to the rooms and rooms of detailed files on the people in his prisons

This is the same stuff the japanese Doomsday cult made and delivered into the subway system a few years back. Its not an overly complicated weapon to make.

This certainly isnt a stockpile nor is it a Weapon Of Mass Destruction, one would assume a WMD would cause more than a trip to the hospital for 2 people, if thats the Criteria of "mass destruction", invade McDonalds, the French Fry cooker is obviously a WMD.
1000 of these shells, hell, even a couple hundred, would be considered as such.
But over a year of searching and all we have found is two old shells? Hardly justified.
You dont spend 200 Billion on an invasion to recover 2 ten year old shells.

I have a feeling he keeps alot of shit buried all over the place. Shells like that are not hard to hide. After all, it's the desert. You just drive for a bit, dig a hole, and remember where you dug it.

Didn't they bury a Mig 21/25 in a giant plastic bag or something?

invade McDonalds,

I'll be doing that around noon today. It will be a campaign of shock and awe, and grotesque food grubbing.

L2 if there was 1 then there are surely more around. And it certainly IS a WOMD. It was detonated and delivered in the wrong manner.

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2...37,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html)

Don't discount so quickly L2...

It's one of 550 that Saddam failed to account for following the first War in Iraq.

It's one of two different chemical weapons found in the last two weeks. Both of which were rigged to kill Americans as part of their usual hidden bombs. The other contained mustard gas.

Now, what worries me most is this sounds like there's a munitions dump that the insurgents have access to. Meaning it's well hidden and prepositioned for use after invasion.

It's proof brotha...

Of course I expect the liberal extremists to discount it. It totally weakens their position on Iraq after all.

Fandros

This certainly isnt a stockpile nor is it a Weapon Of Mass Destruction, one would assume a WMD would cause more than a trip to the hospital for 2 people, if thats the Criteria of "mass destruction", invade McDonalds, the French Fry cooker is obviously a WMD.

It's all in the delivery. And your response was just too predictable.

Must be fun laughing in the face of pure evil and excusing it away as frivilous, and not worth our time. But like I just said, you're going to excuse it away because it doesn't help you elect Kerry.

If its more, Ill be pretty fucking happy. It would be HUGE plus for America in a time when we REALLY need it.

I am however, sadly used to be being disappointed with this whole set of affairs.

Now doesn't seem the best time to be using that kind of weaponry on US troops. I find it difficult to believe that Saddam wouldn't have utilized them during the invasion if he had ready access to them, and it's also unlikely that he'd hide them so far out of the way as to render them useless.

I'd hardly call this a victory for Bush's case for war. There's just not enough to it. If Fandros' hypothesis about a cache of such weapons is correct, it would be a windfall and perhaps bolster Bush's sagging approval ratings (as well as making our troops that much safer). But again the question is begged: Why didn't Saddam use such a cache during the war? Certainly not out of concern that he might hurt his own people.

But again the question is begged: Why didn't Saddam use such a cache during the war?

Because while the anti-war freaks and liberals where already wringing their hands in consternation that we were in a quagmire (in the first 5 days of the invasion) our kick-ass military had already decapitated their army's leadership and communication abilities? Just a thought.

But I never thought he would actually use them anyway, but that's not the point. As Halo is so fond of saying, you have missed the plot.

This certainly isnt a stockpile nor is it a Weapon Of Mass Destruction


www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/sari.../facts.asp (http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/sarin/basics/facts.asp)

If that isn't a WoMD I'd like to hear what you think classifies as one.

I wouldn't call a handgrenade a WoMD, but bind a million together and set it off on a busy street, and I'd call it a WoMD.
THAT, wasn't a WoMD.
Which means it does not answer the dead and buried question of whether the regime possessed stockpiles of WoMD. Thinking otherwise is a painful scratch at distorted hopes. Something Akipt would, obviously, throw his hopes to (take note: hopes. He HOPES there are WoMD. Twisted eh?)

What it does do, however, is make one wonder the reasoning and explanations of this type of weaponary. Is it a new trend? Something brought in to the country? Something uncovered? Something they didn't even know they had?
Either way - it's going to create disasterous consequences if this catches on as some sort of "trend". Chemical weaponary as booby traps? Yowser.
But it does make you wonder, as I said, if they even knew the shell contained traces of Sarin. It certainly wasn't deployed or used in the way it was supposed to, hence it failing to actually do anything when detonated.

I think they are currently checking the date/originals at the moment. Would be interesting to see whether or not it was very old, and the chemical degraded, or whether it was new, brought in, and just simply used incorrectly.

As a rather good British reporter said today:

"One shell clearly does not make a chemical arsenal.
But if Iraqi insurgents knew where to find this one, there is the disturbing possibility for the US-led coalition that other similar munitions may have fallen into their hands. "

The Liberal Anti-War-Freak hath spoken.

Nice spin Halo, very clever. "THAT is no WMD" ... "but let's hope they can't find more like it."

Haha.

And I'm not hoping its a WMD... the CDC hath spoken, it is one. Twisted huh?

That was a WMD filled shell,

It just wasn't delieved correectly.
It was designed as an artillery shell but delieved as a roadside bomb.

I doubt the people who set it knew what it was. What scares me most is that it was unmarked. Where there's one there will probably be more.

--Namie

Btw, to all who doubt this was WMD, if this were fired correctly into your back yard, you and your neighbors would probably die very painfully.

Roughly a gallon or 3.6 liters of sarin was used in the Japan rail system attack. If the terrosists delivered this in a more potent way, other then stabbing plastic bags with umbrellas, there would have been far more destruction then 12 dead and 5,000 seriously sickened.

Sounds like a WMD to me.

In all fairness though...as some have said, the insurgants who placed the roadside bomb more then likely didnt know what they had there...in that case, what pile of shells did they pull it from, and where are the rest?

The world wonders

Btw, to all who doubt this was WMD, if this were fired correctly into your back yard, you and your neighbors would probably die very painfully.
How many people did the Hiroshima bomb kill, Nagasaki perhaps? Are you saying anything that kills with a radius of 20 yards is a WMD? I gotta say if this is the "proof" of "stockpiles" of weapons then by god I have WMD in my kitchen.

Also if the people that used it didnt know what it was then they odds are arent "hording" them for later use.

In all fairness though...as some have said, the insurgants who placed the roadside bomb more then likely didnt know what they had there.

I personally find it more likely that they knew exactly what they had and were trying to find an alternative means of delivery. Its not like the insurgents have either a towed or self-propelled 155mm howitzer laying around to fire the thing properly.

Like bombing every country in the Middle East in hopes of removing some terrorist/regime elements that you unsucessfully are able to achieve, in the cover of a purpose like WoMD which proves to be false, leaving the countries in poverty and humanitarian crisis, and then moving on in hopes everyone forgets, to the next country?
HARTMUT!
Of course the war wasn't fake! Damn you for thinking it!
I mean.. just look at all the WoMD they uncovered.
How can you even think that the war served another purpose besides the removal of WoMD?!
Damnit!
He also didn't have any WoMD, you feckin twat. I will tattoo that to your forehead soon.
I'll put it to you as simple as I can: The war was made on the basis of WoMD and terrorist ties.
It was found to be false, intelligence wrong, and no proof of either. Those who are open minded enough to realise they were caught up in the patriotic dribble guised under the grief and bloodlust from 9/11 are able to mistake themselves, but there are still the hardcore Bushites who now turn to the argument that "Oh well Saddam was evil and uhh.. we're all gonna make it better now".
Oh shut up.
Now come on... the WoMD don't exit. Say it with me, sister. They don't exist. Come on. They don't exist. You were conned. It was all a lie. They don't exist. Wake up like most others, and realise you were fucked by a Bush.
- Heh, coming from the only person left on planet Earth who still believes there were WoMD or Al-Qaede ties in Iraq.
Even Bush has gotten over the illusion, for godsake.
Iraq is torn a new one, no WoMD or Al-Qaede/terrorist ties are found. To avoid complete humiliation, the objectives are now steered towards "liberation" and reasoned with the fact that Saddam was an arsehole, anyway, so who cares why we're here?
It's a sad prospect that there are still some Bushites out there roaming the streets, believing that magical WoMD do indeed exist.
- Oh give me a break! You cannot be seriously accusing us of ignoring truths and realities?!
YOU STILL THINK WOMD EXIST.
You post the facts? You have all the clues?
Where are the WoMD, mother fucker?
Thanks Halo for the good time :)

But it still doesn't really matter. Saddam didn't comply with the UN Resolution 1441. This is just MORE proof of that, we had enough proof of non-cooperation before we invaded, but it wasn't enough for people like you. And quite shockingly, this won't be either.

Sarin is Chemical weapon. It was devoloped in the 30s by Nazi Scientists. Iraq used these weapons in the 80s to attack Iran and Kurds.

This shell was likely a leftover from that.

If you really believe weapons grade Sarin isn't a WMD then I can't really say anything to you. I just feel sad for you.

Its already been said, 1 Gallon, properly delievered could kills thousands of people.

--Namie

That anyone could refute Sarin as a WMD is simply an indication of their own ignorance.

It's horrifically deadly, and likely this was a test to prove out it's usefullness in this situation.

I imagine that ideally they were hoping it would form a cloud and wipe out an entire convoy of our troops.

Thankfully it's easy to envision, and much much harder to implement.

Halo, you up in the night and caught with yer winky in the light socket on this one.

Fandros

'Thanks Halo for the good time'

- What good time would that be?
Listing every correct point I've made over a few months?
Because.. you know that a shell filled with Sarin that is either so old it was ineffective when coupled with the detonation, or actually used by people not even aware of its existence - with the 155mm shell dating back to the Iran-Iraq war, does not really constitue as stockpiles of WoMD.
You're.. getting this in to your head, right? Because it seems that, to my amusement, it's just not.. catching on.

'If you really believe weapons grade Sarin isn't a WMD then I can't really say anything to you. I just feel sad for you.'

'That anyone could refute Sarin as a WMD is simply an indication of their own ignorance.'

- Well no, it's not. Sarin isn't a weapon of mass destruction. The same as a missle isn't a WoMD. Nor is a hand-grenade. Used in certain situations, coupled with certain agents, then they do, indeed, become WoMD.
A 155mm shell tipped with Sarin isn't what I would class - and I'd like to think the majority of the educated population also would agree - as a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

Quite insanely, I'm not ready to "buy" anything until I see evidence. I'll find it hard to believe that there are either Al-Qaede ties or WoMD in Iraq until I see.. guess what... EITHER OF THE TWO.
Crazy logic, eh?

'It's horrifically deadly, and likely this was a test to prove out it's usefullness in this situation.'

- Uhh.. may I ask why is that likely? I could probably understand you if it actually managed to do anything other than fail to activate through pure deterioration of age or incorrect use by the insurgents. But, I'm sure to Akipt's dissapointment.. it just didn't do anything. Such a conclusion must lead a person to believe rather that they simply didn't know it contained Sarin, than it being some elaborate scheme where this shell was taken from a stockpile of WoMD, tested out to see how many people it would wipe out, and used as a base for further mass destruction.

'And quite shockingly, this won't be either. '

- Quite shockingly, a 20 year old shell with, what seems to be, ineffective Sarin inside, detonated incorrectly and harming no one, does not lead me to believe that stockpiles of WoMD exist in Iraq.
However, I could, of course, be wrong. The insurgents who did this, or failed to do this as it were, could be caught tommorrow, end up leading coalition forces to gigantic WoMD warehouses, which were actually hidden all along by Faerie Magic.

Only time will tell, I guess.

And before you get too excited about this.

Remember the possiblities.
1. This is an isolated left-over that was floating around as Saddam got rid of almost all of his stockpiles before the invasion.

Ok.. dont like that one.. well there is an alternative.

2. Saddam had massive stockpiles of WMDs, which we have failed to find, but are now in the control and possession of this man (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3483089.stm)

so in reality our invasion of Iraq would have given Al-Queda the very thing our war was enacted to prevent in the first.
Only reality would present such a twisted irony.

Oh, and on a sidenote..

"Kimmitt said it appeared that whoever set up the roadside bomb was unaware that it contained the chemicals."

- cnn.com

RUN FORZ UR LIFEZ, TEH WOMD R COMING!11

Halo Logic 101 - It's not a WMD unless it makes a mushroom cloud AND is used properly to kill thousands and thousands of Americans.

Thanks for the clarification Halo!

And L2, welcome to the year 2004. Everyone else has been worried about that for the past decade.

Akipt Logic 101:
"WATCH OUT FOR THE HAND GRENADE! IT'S A WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION!"

And as for L2, you'll find he's pointing to the ironic fact that the the underlying reason for the war - to make the world safer - has meant it is less safe now than ever before.

Like, duh.

Akipt Logic 101: "WATCH OUT FOR THE HAND GRENADE! IT'S A WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION!"

But you hope they don't find more of them huh? Haha, you're too fucking hilarious Halo. Keep it going.

And as for L2, you'll find he's pointing to the ironic fact that the the underlying reason for the war - to make the world safer - has meant it is less safe now than ever before.

Glass is half empty. Doom and gloom. We're all dying. It's all Bush's fault. Blah blah blah.

Anyway, still waiting for confirmation on the sarin munition. But it's funny as hell watching you guys spin this out to be insignificant.

They could find a nuke tomorrow and these clowns would still down play it in some fashion.

yes because marz, it wouldn't contain exactly as much weapons grade plutonium used in nagazaki

there for 2 less people that would of died and scientificly thats not concidered mass destruction, just lots of destruction and concidered worthless

From the BBC:

"However, a senior coalition source has told the BBC the round does not signal the discovery of weapons of mass destruction or the escalation of insurgent activity.

He said the round dated back to the Iran-Iraq war and coalition officials were not sure whether the fighters even knew what it contained."


news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...722255.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3722255.stm)

Viva la Beeb, you FoxNetworkBrainWashedFools

I still think that there's a lot of nasty weapons to be found in all that desert over there.

He said the round dated back to the Iran-Iraq war

Right, the ones he was supposed to destroy?

Viva la limp wristed Lin.

'But it's funny as hell watching you guys spin this out to be insignificant. '

- Well we'll continue to do what we do. You continue to do what you do.
The only difference in being, time usually proves us right.

Riiiight. Just like they did not find Serin over the weekend.

Sarin isn't a weapon of mass destruction. The same as a missle isn't a WoMD. Nor is a hand-grenade. Used in certain situations, coupled with certain agents, then they do, indeed, become WoMD.



Well that depends on what the definition of "is" is.


Grenades, even if you found a warehouse full of tons of them, are not WoMD.

WoMD are Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical weapons.

honestly im very happy this thread was made, i just spent a few minutes of the following 2 hours of horrid boredom reading this...post more now!

Here's a few things I find interesting...

1) If Sarin gas was used by anyone in the world ya'll would be up in arms. But yet you blather away...

2) The terrorists might not have known what they had... Fucking hell folks what does that matter? It's not like they hit the local Flea Market and picked it up with a disclaimer that it's use was unknown. That shell was designed to carry it's payload up to 14 miles away. Wake the fuck up...

3) That's Sarin...Yanno what it is right? ONE DROP is all it takes to kill an individual. Somehow because they were the equivelent of Redcoats in New America and confused in fighting in a new manner we excuse them and turn this find into lil more than a hand grenade? Idiots...

What's scarier is where there's one there's bound to be more. And practice makes perfect folks soooo yippee skippee let's absolve that regime of any suspicion of WMOD.

Sarin gas, by all definitions known to rational folks, is WMOD. It wasn't designed to clean your auto body of rust ya fucknuts...

As for Halo's statement " we do what we do and are proven right over time" Errr sorry ya fine fellow, this time you've been shown that all your bullshit since the onset of the war was way off base...WAYYYYYYYYY

When was the other time you were proven right?

Was it when the UN should be honored and listened to? /coughs FOODFOROILSCAM...

Fandros

It still comes down to the two possibilities.

Either its a isolated leftover that made it through the destruction process that saddam might or might not have done.

Or

Terrorists have control of the stockpile.
One or the other... which one are you hoping for?

We did not launch an invasion into Iraq to recover a few shells that escaped the purge. Thats not what this was about. This was about a man who we mistakenly believed was manufacturing these weapons in clandestine labs in blatent definance of UN resolutions post Gulf 1.
What does a 10+ year old shell tell us?
Nothing.

If we launched this invasion, and it turns out in the end that Terrorists have used the chaos created in the wake of our invasion to obtain WMDs that they would otherwise not have had access to, then the primary reason for the war is a complete and utter failure.
Al Quedas main financial income came from Heroin for a long time, until booted out of Afganistan, thousands of tons of it is smuggled into this country every month.
Think about it.

So lets say you are right. This is part of a larger illegal stockpile that was hidden in the desert. Somehow, either through disgruntled former Iraqi Republican Guard, or another way, this stockpile was uncovered. I figure it must be a central stockpile otherwise we would have been turning up small amounts all over the place, plus one well hidden primary location is easier to control, hide and obtain quickly if ever needed.
Obviously it wasnt us who uncovered this cache of WMDs. It was someone else. But who? Baathist insurgents? Thats your best possibility. Someone who knew the location. Ok, now he has this information and can find the weapons. So he sits on em. What does this person have in mind now? Revenge or Profit? Both of his motives lead him to Al Queda.
Who, again, if we listen your opinions has a close relationship with the former Saddam regime. But we are going to toss that out, because there is absolutly no proof that Saddam had ties to Al Queda. But we know that AQ operatives have been operating in Iraq since the end of the war and thousands of foriegn fighters came over unsecured borders to help stir up chaos. (thanks again Rummy for not enough troops).
So the possibilty exists, did these 2 forces nexus at some point and the sale/trade/gift of these weapons was enabled? Has that been AQs main objective in Iraq all this time?

Or, is this some shell that was accidently negelected to be destroyed and chanced on by luck.

'Terrorists have control of the stockpile.'

- WHAT STOCKPILE?!
Fandros is blabbing away with the use of paranoid, extreme speculation in the hopes of making me look like I'm trying to ignore this.
If you actually read my original post - I didn't ignore it. I took it very serioiusly, the immediate danger and the continuing use.
What I am kicking your arse about, though, is the fact that a 155mm shell tipped with Sarin ISN'T A WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION ANYMORE THAN A HAND GRENADE IS.

If this had any possibility of remotely contributing to the dead and buried argument of the existence of WoMD.. don't you think, uhh.. everyone would be giving a bit more of a shit about it? You know.. namely Bush and co?
The Pope's 84th birthday is a bigger deal, aparantly.

Christ, it's like finding a "I love Bin Laden" poster in the Iraqi desert and screaming "SADDAM DOES HAVE BIN LADEN TIES AFTER ALL!"

Okay L2, first we argued whether they actually had WMOD. Which by Saddam's own admission they did have and didn't account for their disposal. What did he have to gain by such statements?

Now we're arguing quantity and age?

Bud, there's proof they had it. It's not mixed up in some lil kids chemistry kit.

I'll agree with your theory about the probability of a central hidden location on the weapons. Tho I honestly think the Iraqi scientists claim that most weapons were shuttled off to Syria is likely true.

Regardless, he had the weapons and was already funding terrorist activities against Israel and American interests.

Proof is in the pudding....now ya'll have to spoon up and eat said pudding.

Fandros

Err Halo?

Pull that bulbous head out of the sand. You saying Sarin isn't a WMOD doesn't change the fact that it is. What else is it bud? A saucy lil cocktail one imbibes in between meals during summer soltice? You really are reaching by trying to redefine WMOD to suit your own ends. Reminds me of when Clinton tried to redefine sex to justify his adultry. LoL That's the missing link!!!!! All liberals are willing to totally restructure the english language because it's the only avenue to logic they can find!!!!

Climb back into your pub now boyo and find another reason to dislike America. Yer reasoning on this one is flat out busted.

Now, quit attempting to belittle something so deadly aight? Yer pulling back the blankets on the pile of bullshit you've tried to sell to yourself and to others here.

Fandros

What I am kicking your arse about, though, is the fact that a 155mm shell tipped with Sarin ISN'T A WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION ANYMORE THAN A HAND GRENADE IS.

Sarin, a nerve gas, IS a weapon of mass destruction. If it turns out the 155mm shell was "hot", meaning it was prepared to deliver a sarin payload, then it IS a weapon of mass destruction. Incorrect detonation of the device does not negate this fact . This is true in the same way that a nuclear missile is a weapon of mass destruction, even if it is never detonated.

How hard is that to understand Halo? Really?

If it turns out that the sarin payload had been removed and only traces of it remained in the shell then I'll feel less concern about insurgents having access to a stockpile of weapons that our forces haven't uncovered yet.

We did not launch an invasion into Iraq to recover a few shells that escaped the purge.


What purge?

Did you see evidence of one?

The world didn't for the years there were inspectors on the ground there looking for it and as far as I know there still hasn't been any.

Do you have some secret 1337 beta infoz on this?

Foxnews: Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html)

Saying the shell was "tipped" with sarin is a misleading statement btw.

It in fact had aprox 4 liters of the deadly nerve agent. 4 damn liters, and it takes aprox one drop to kill one person.

Hmmmm sounds WMODish to me...

Fandros

If we launched this invasion, and it turns out in the end that Terrorists have used the chaos created in the wake of our invasion to obtain WMDs that they would otherwise not have had access to, then the primary reason for the war is a complete and utter failure.

Complete assumption. Remember that single Pakistani scientist? Of course you don't, because it does not fit in your "It's all Bush's fault" meme.

But we are going to toss that out, because there is absolutly no proof that Saddam had ties to Al Queda.

Really? No proof whatsoever? Or just proof you choose to ignore?

And seeing Halo's use of CAPS!11!!111! is exciting. It's cool watching a liberal wanker implode.

Nobody argues that Saddam had WMDs at some point. He gassed the Kurds in 1988. Iran and Iraq engaged in chemical warfare on a massive scale during their conflict. Iran would use gas persistantly to void areas to sey for their human wave attacks and Iraq would repell the attacks with gas. Also keep in mind that the US was supporting Iraq at the time of this usage.
Sarin, invented by nazi scientists, isnt a new invention and becomes easier and easier to make as technology improves.

Really? No proof whatsoever? Or just proof you choose to ignore?
Show me some. Ill gladly read it. I havent seen any. I seen the arguement that they COULD possibly at some point work together. And Ive seen the arguement that Saddam supported Hamas groups with money. But I have seen ZERO evidence, and the Administration has presented ZERO evidence that shows any link between Iraq and AQ before the start of the war.
"I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection," Mr. Powell said, in response to a question at a news conference. "But I think the possibility of such connections did exist

Rumsfeld, once a strong supporter of the Muhammad Atta/Prague link, admitted to journalist Robert Novak May 13, 2002, that he was no longer sure of the connection. Even the Prague government, who had Al-Ani under surveillance, has officially stated the meeting didn’t happen.

Now we're arguing quantity and age?
OF COURSE WE ARE.
We didnt invade Iraq for possessing and using WMDs before 1991. The evidence presented as a reason for invasion was based completly on the fact that Saddam was CONTINUING to produce these weapons.
Remember this from George Bushs State of the Union speech?
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
500 tons.. ready to go. Not a 15 year old artillery shell
Regardless, he had the weapons and was already funding terrorist activities against Israel and American interests.
We arent concerned with Hamas it seems. We are content to let Israel deal with it. To include Saddams funding of a terrorist group that we have taken no action against at all, is disingenious.

What purge?

Did you see evidence of one?
Errr thats exactally the problem.
Lack of evidence.
We have found next to nothing.
Since we launched an offensive war on a country, that as evil and as fucked as it was, didnt attack us first, the onus came upon us to prove our case post prosecution.
2 shells have turned up that may be leftovers from the massive massive stockpiles Saddam had in the 80s during the Iran Iraq war. We KNOW at one point he had ALOT of this shit. Literally tons upon tons.
But at some point he got rid of it, either it was destroyed, stolen or hidden. Hidden is the least likely of the possibilites. To move that MUCH of a substance would take many many people. Someone would know something. Of all the "cards" in the deck we captured, someone would have known. We got nothing.

If you are saying this justifies the invasion, I argue back that it has the potential to do the exact opposite. My hope is that it is what I have said, a remnant of a larger stockpile, long since destroyed. If Im wrong, then the alternative is a man who has shown willingness to use WMDs, shown knowledge in production and delivery, now has possesion of large quantities of a vast amount of Sarin.

OK, so this is why Iraq was invaded? Because of a 155mm shell?

'You saying Sarin isn't a WMOD doesn't change the fact that it is.'

- You're just *not* fucking getting it. It's like talking to a brick wall!
A 155mm shell with Sarin inside is NOT a WoMD. How is it?! Sarin can be used as a WoMD, very true. BUT IT WASN'T!
Is a missle a WoMD? No it's not. A nuclear tipped missle IS. Because, guess what, it causes mass destruction.

You cannot say "Sarin is a WoMD". It's not a correct sentence. You've neither implied the quantity or context of the chemical substance. If there was a stockpike of missles filled with Sarin, guess what - you'd have WoMDs.
One artillery shell with degraded, aged Sarin is - and even I'm getting fucking tired of hearing it - NOT A WOMD.

Christ guys, the desperation is sad. It's.. very sad.
Now if you were arguing that the mere sight of Sarin being used in an artillery shell could *lead* to proof of WoMDs, then sure, we'd have a good debate on our hands.

Otherwise, it's about as useful as saying "We found a severed finger in Iraq, it's proof that the Saddam regime killed tens of thousands of people." No skippy, the tens of thousands of corpses is proof that tens of thousands of people were killed.

'Really? No proof whatsoever? Or just proof you choose to ignore?'

- It just confuses me how you continue to believe either WoMD or Al-Qaede ties exist, when even your beloved Bush and co have recognized the complete lack of dignity in both claims. It just seems very odd that you grind on arguing about things your "side" don't even bother to do anymore.
Please, show me the proof that Saddam funded/supported/protected Al-qaede. And not that fucking link about the single suspected - but proven inaccurate - Al-qaede terrorist found hiding out in the middle of the desert.
Then when you show us the overwhelming proof, link me a picture of a WoMD found in Iraq. I'll throw you a bone: it doesn't even have to be a stockpile of WoMD that you all believed existed. I'm a nice guy like that.

Then I will bend over, and kiss my own arse.
OKAY? Let's end this all here, and now. Link me a Weapon of Mass Destruction found in Iraq(155mm shells that fail to inflict even a single casualty, not included) and then a document, or some such evidence, that signifies the support by the Saddam regime of Al-Qaede.

I'll give you a couple days. Go go go!

You cannot say "Sarin is a WoMD".

Sarin is a WoMD. Hmm. Seemed easy to say to me.

You cannot say "Sarin is a WoMD". It's not a correct sentence. You've neither implied the quantity or context of the chemical substance. If there was a stockpike of missles filled with Sarin, guess what - you'd have WoMDs.
One artillery shell with degraded, aged Sarin is - and even I'm getting fucking tired of hearing it - NOT A WOMD.

Ok, you cocksore, I'll play your fucking game.

Had you bothered to read the linked article you'd know that this particular artillery shell we're currently debating was carrying a payload of 3-4 liters of sarin.

Is that enough fucking sarin for you to allow this might maybe, possibly, somewhere in the vicinity of actuality, be a WoMD?

Oh! I know! The body count is what makes it a WoMD. Had the insurgents successfully detonated this shell in a manner that created a vapor cloud and took out 200 or more people, most of them likely innocent bystanders then it would be a WoMD.

You cankerous twat, the question isn't whether this shell was a WoMD, the question that needs to be answered is whether this shell is part of a store of similar munitions or is it an unaccounted for leftover.

I'd also like to know where you got the idea that the sarin was "degraded" and "aged". It wasn't mentioned in the article that you didn't read. I know with your long years of military service you are well versed in artillery munitions, both conventional and unconventional. I'm sure you can rattle off for us the shelf life of the chemicals used in a binary shell. What's that? No clue at all? Here's your mug of STFU. Enjoy.

I'm inclined to believe, in an orgy of self-fisting, you grabbed a handful of whatever you had for tea yesterday and yanked it right out your asshole and are attempting to serve it up for all of us as if it were fresh buttered scones.

That one 155mm shell, if used as intended, could cause a hundred deaths or more. If used in conjunction with a few more in a salvo, we are talking thousands of deaths. By common parlance, weaponized sarin falls solidly under WoMD.

A single shell is not proof that the missing 500 tons are out there waiting to be used. It is a worrisome indicator though, because the Iraqis claimed ALL the sarin had been destroyed. Was it an honest oversight? Possibly, but given the Iraqi track record and the odds that one of the "few" shells overlooked just happened to be found by a militant to use against us argues against it.

It's too early to tell what the situation is for sure, but if I were going to look for a WoMD cache I would concentrate the search near the city this shell was used.

David Kay, former head of the Iraq Survey Group which searched fruitlessly for WMD after the war, said: "It doesn't strike me as a big deal."

Kimmit said that because the shell was rigged to explode like a roadside bomb rather than being fired by an artillery piece, the two chemicals inside did not mix properly to make much sarin gas. "It's virtually ineffective as a chemical weapon," he said.
Halo could also argue that without a 155mm Artillery piece this was no more a WMD than placing Ammonia and Bleach next to each other.
"couse. Im just playing Devils Advocate there.

Errr thats exactally the problem.
Lack of evidence.
We have found next to nothing.


So what are you basing your "purge" on?

How do you know it happened? How did you find the evidence that led you to believe it happened? Where can -we-(meaning all of us here, and more importantly the world at large) find evidence that Saddam initiated a purge of his WoMD?

Why didn't he give proof of that purge years ago?

It would have solved all of his problems, and was clearly in his own best interest to do so if indeed he did destroy them.

Answers?

A misguided belief, you don't, you didn't, we can't, he didn't do it to begin with.

There is no other logical answer.


A 155mm shell with Sarin inside is NOT a WoMD. How is it?! Sarin can be used as a WoMD, very true. BUT IT WASN'T!
Is a missle a WoMD? No it's not. A nuclear tipped missle IS. Because, guess what, it causes mass destruction.


Listen genius, you're just not getting it.

WoMD are nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.

A missile is not WoMD, but it becomes WoMD when a nuclear warhead is added because it is now part of a nuclear weapon.

A 155mm shell is not WoMD, but it becomes WoMD when you add sarin.

Nuclear warheads are WoMD all by themselves. You do not need to add anything for it to qualify as one.

Sarin is a chemical agent, ie a chemical weapon. You don't need anything added to it for it to be a WoMD because it IS one all by itself(nuclear, biological, chemical).

thats like saying an ICBM isn't a WMD becaues there isn't a silo, there is still ways to detonate the missile properly

and i'm sure there are still ways to detonate one of these shells properly given the chance and time

The ultimate question is this: was that shell a WoMD? The thing we've been looking for, for so long? Is that all we need to believe that there are stockpiles of WoMD? Is that evidence? No. I think not.

If it is only one of many that comprise the missing 500 tons and were NOT destroyed, then it does point towards justification. We just won't know until/unless more are found.

We should be glad they apparently did not understand what they had. The binary chemicals could have been unloaded from the shell, mixed in their entirety and released in a crowded building with a simple garden sprayer into the air circulation system.

"The ultimate question is this: was that shell a WoMD?"

Yep!

"Is that all we need to believe that there are stockpiles of WoMD? Is that evidence? No. I think not."

Ok I will give you this one, its not conclusive evidence that there are infact stockpiles of these munitions laying about, but it also leaves room for the possibility that there are infact WMDs in that country.

The ultimate question is this: was that shell a WoMD?


Yes.

Does it vindicate the WoMD allegations all by itself?

No.

However it would be stupid to presume these two(don't forget the other one with mustard gas) shells are all that remains of everything he never accounted for. That stuff didn't just disappear. Keep in mind how meticulously the former regime recording everything.

No record of them being destroyed if they had actually been "purged"?

Bullshit.

There is a nice poetry in arguing that because we havent found it but cant prove it isnt there means it must be there.

What we need is just ONE presidential canidate with a clue ... so far there are none.

What we need is just ONE presidential canidate with a clue ... so far there are none.

There's Gary Nolan - though I'd be surprised if he goes beyond six digits' worth of votes.

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/WeaponsofMassDistraction-X.gif

HEY THAT LOOKES LIEK THE SHELL THEY FOUND IN IRAQI!11

Where do you think the artist got his inspiration?

There is a nice poetry in arguing that because we havent found it but cant prove it isnt there means it must be there.


Ok Bowler, explain to me why exactly Saddam would have destroyed his weapons and weapons programs yet not showed the proof he would have had(remember the records?) to solve ALL of his problems with the UN and ease sanctions?

What possible gain would he have for keeping the spotlight and the sanctions on him if he had indeed destroyed his WoMD as you think he did?

I've shown my reasoning, you prove the case you are pushing so hard.

I want to know why he wouldn't come forward with proof.

I've a weird lil theory kicking around in my head about why Saddam played the hardcore game of cat and mouse with his WMOD.

Food for oil was lining his pockets as well as certain individuals in the UN and such.

The embargo and sanctions against Iraq were putting a drain on the US and it's allies while making him and his secret allies unreasonably rich.

/chuckle That's the only reason I can think of to play that game...

Fandros

What possible gain would he have for keeping the spotlight and the sanctions on him if he had indeed destroyed his WoMD as you think he did?
Where did I say I thought he destroyed all his WOMD? Its not a stretch to think maybe he handed some over to fanatics in the past. I just was poking fun at the logic of some of the board members.

Face it, even if he had them, at this point it doesnt help the Iraq situation. Strong leadership is not being exhibited either at home or in Iraq. The only option worse than Bush is Kerry. God this election is going to be ass regardless of the outcome.

Ok Bowler, explain to me why exactly Saddam would have destroyed his weapons and weapons programs yet not showed the proof he would have had(remember the records?) to solve ALL of his problems with the UN and ease sanctions?
Basic reason is paranoia. Saddam ruled through one method. Fear. He pretty much only understood that. The same year he came to power the Iran/Iraq war started. The only thing that prevented the Iranian human wave attacks from taking Baghdad was the use of chemical weapons. Problem with the Kurds? Gas em, now they are too afraid to rise up again. He has used these weapons with great effectiveness.
Remember that after the Gulf War 1, 13 of the 16 Shia provinces rose up in rebellion. They were crushed by Saddan when the US realized it didnt want a Shia government in Iraq and didnt support it.
Remember what is next door, A Shia led nation. And guess where the holiest of all Shia sites are... Iraq.
Saddam was surronded on all sides by people who wanted to have him dead and his government collapse. With no army to speak of anymore, no real defenses, he wanted to have it both it ways.
So he destroyed the weapons, without ever admitting it always would have left a doubt in the minds of those who he wanted to fear him.

I'm not too sure of that conclusion myself.
What I do find odd, though, is how certain people here find it inconcievable and unlikely he got rid of his weapons (sold/destroyed), while ready to believe he has managed to hide these "stockpikes" so undeniably well that it appears to escape all probability of existence.

Sort of a contradiction in terms of plausability, there.

What I do find odd, though, is how certain people here find it inconcievable and unlikely he got rid of his weapons (sold/destroyed), while ready to believe he has managed to hide these "stockpikes" so undeniably well that it appears to escape all probability of existence.

Because Saddam SAID he got rid of them all, but how many things did Blix find that he really had not? How many other violations of 1441 have we found since the invasion? David Kay has testimony from hundreds of Iraq's scientists that their research programs (for whatever reason) were in progress even up till the day we finally invaded. And yet you still want to believe Saddam was some harmless little dictator with a piss-ant threat.

You're living in some chemically imbalanced state of mind or you're being completely dishonest with your posts here.

But Aikpt, really! The US, UK and co forces are free to move around in the whole country for more than a year now. Before that, US and UK airplanes controlled Iraqi air in the north and in the south. US had and surely still has satellites watching all over iraq, we saw the pictures with unimagable details about ground objects. CIA and MI5 had reports about existing WOMDs, and i bet such a report contains data about the place where these weapons are most likely kept.

I do think, if Saddam had WOMD last march he would have used them, againts coalition soldiers, kurds, Israel, etc.

Western military did not capture any missile-launcher base or so, they had communication line until the very last days of the war (remember that funny minister who was kept telling that they are owning US military in the Iraqi TV while tanks and soldiers were just to the next street of his office?) so they could command to use those weapon. If there were any.

Noone cries for Saddam, all knows he used WOMDs previously against his own people. But it seems, in spite of what was in the CIA reports, currently he did not own any.

I do think, if Saddam had WOMD last march he would have used them, againts coalition soldiers, kurds, Israel, etc.

I love how some people project their rationally perceived actions and expect a complete psychopath to mirror their own reality.

Like bouncing a tennis ball on a gravel road, it's not always going to bounce straight back up to you.

That's were the worlds' intelligence agencies fucked up, so don't take it too personally lamascsi. You're not alone.

'I love how some people project their rationally perceived actions and expect a complete psychopath to mirror their own reality.'

- Yet you do that all the time. In almost every post. Your entire argument, because it lacks proof, is based on your presumptions of what he would have done, because he was evil. Because you can't find WoMD, you assume they're hidden because he was evil. You're trying to project your rationally percieved actions and expect a complete psychopath to mirror your own reality.

Yet you do that all the time. In almost every post. Your entire argument, because it lacks proof, is based on your presumptions of what he would have done, because he was evil. Because you can't find WoMD, you assume they're hidden because he was evil. You're trying to project your rationally percieved actions and expect a complete psychopath to mirror your own reality.

Which is the entire reason Bush took his ass out. No more mind games with a psychopath, yet YOU think we could still rationally work with and trust the sumbitch.

Nobody ever trusted him. Well not recently anyway. Its not that Bush took him out ... when will you realize that its because Bush MISLED us to do it. The reason Bush felt he could do that is because of people like you.

Bush needs to stand up and lead the country. His speeches make him just seem more and more clueless.

Everyone is out to lie to you Bowler, better get your tin hat strapped on so you can channel the paranoia.

'Nobody ever trusted him. Well not recently anyway. Its not that Bush took him out ... when will you realize that its because Bush MISLED us to do it. The reason Bush felt he could do that is because of people like you.'

- Don't bother Bowler. He can't grasp a reality different from his own. As warped and confused as it is.
Bush could come up to him next week, slap him with a wet kipper, yell "I LIED TO YOU! THIS IS ALL BULLSHIT!" and he'd still feel inclined to argue with Bush on how he, Bush, was telling the truth.

Just kick back and laugh. It's Gggggreat!
[This post has been sponsored by Tony the Tiger]

Everyone is out to lie to you Bowler, better get your tin hat strapped on so you can channel the paranoia.
Are you suggesting that Im a paranoid freak because I suggested that a politician misled us? How old are you really?

Its great to show support for a president. I dont like the idea of John Kerry being president. But at this point Bush isnt "leading" anything, he is simply blown back and forth by news from "The Front".

Are you suggesting that Im a paranoid freak because I suggested that a politician misled us?

Then I suppose you ignored the past ten or so many years, regime change, Clinton, Kerry, Gore, ... all those other politicians that have been misleading you all these years too huh? Both houses of Congress giving Bush authorization.... nah, Bush is a fucking moron though. How could he do all that? Bush can't even put more than two sentences together he's such a fucking stupid ass! Or maybe you MISUNDERESTIMATED him! Hahahahaha.

It's all a scam right?, so Bush could get back at Saddam for trying to kill his daddy! Yeeehaaa! Oil in them thar countries. Let's rape their women, bomb their weddings, humiliate their men, and steeeeal their oil. Yeeeehaaaa! Hell yeah sign me up. Where's my shotgun!

Right.

How can you prove something doesn't exist?

Interesting how your mind works Akipt. So Bush tells congress and the world a story. Congress buys it and sends us to war but some how that makes Bush less of a liar?

Are you sure you wanted to include your little tirade about all the OTHER politicians that lied but still say Im stupid for thinking Bush did? Dont assume that because I feel misled by Bush that Im a democrat. Thats only true in your misguided polarized political world.

You cant prove something doesnt exist.

'Bush can't even put more than two sentences together he's such a fucking stupid ass! Or maybe you MISUNDERESTIMATED him! Hahahahaha.'

- That's too funny.

What I do find odd, though, is how certain people here find it inconcievable and unlikely he got rid of his weapons (sold/destroyed),


There were no records of them being destroyed, for one. This is a guy who had detailed files on joe blow from 5 years ago they threw in prison for jaywalking.

Do you think he felt Joe was more important than his chemical weapons stockpiles?

Hidden files?

Why bother, especially now that he is in custody. It would be the one way he could reliably jab at his enemies from the west if he could say "haha go here, you dumbasses, I destroyed them years ago"

Which of course is assuming he wouldn't have come forward with the proof earlier and solved almost all of his problems with embargos and sanctions.

There are way too many sound reasons for him to have given proof of their destruction.


I do think, if Saddam had WOMD last march he would have used them


Nope.

That would have proven the coalition right and he would have lost all support. How could France or anyone else cover for him and try to block the Coalition if he proved the Coalition's allegations were true for them before fighting was even over?

How could people like you sit there and argue about the wrongness of the Coalition's actions with a straight face if he had done that?


How can you prove something doesn't exist?


Who cares?

The proper question is "How could a regime who kept extremely detailed records on everything prove they had destroyed something?".

The answer is very easily, because they could have looked in that file and said "This is the location and proof of the destruction of x, of y, of z. Let's go out there so we can show it to you and the world to clear our name.".

They couldn't, because the records didn't exist(or they would have brought them forward to clear their name and get those sanctions lifted)..and the only reason they didn't exist in a regime who kept records like this one did is -they were never destroyed-.

Your post makes so many assumptions about so many people its almost hilarious.

Im not saying he destroyed them or didnt. But as it sits right now Bush has already APOLOGIEZED for them NOT BEING THERE and that he used faulty intelligence. Why are you still arguing for him?

Your post makes so many assumptions about so many people its almost hilarious.

That's because it's more convenient for you to go back in time and trust and believe everything Saddam-the-psychopath said.

Anyway, it was up to Saddam to cooperate, he didn't. If you think Bush manipulated 2 terms of Clinton to say the exact same things about Saddam, seventeen UN Resolutions begging and pleading for his cooperation, one regime change vote by both houses of Congress under Clinton, and both houses of Congress voting by a vast majority authorizing Bush to remove his ass, all because Bush lied, you're living in some faerie tale.

And I won't even go into the political manuevering that would require him to do all this to get Blair duped to go along.

Which reminds me, where's Halo's outrage at his Prime Minister? I don't recall ever seeing any.

Blair already has no chance to be re-elected. Thats the difference.

Nope.

That would have proven the coalition right and he would have lost all support. How could France or anyone else cover for him and try to block the Coalition if he proved the Coalition's allegations were true for them before fighting was even over?

How could people like you sit there and argue about the wrongness of the Coalition's actions with a straight face if he had done that?

lol Crist0.

When an army invades your country, and that army wants your head, you will be either executed or spend the rest of your lifetime rotting in custody, you do not use your only 'effective' weapon to hurt them. Very probably...

So Saddam haven't used his weapons in order to destabilize the Euroatlantic alliance, and make Bush lose his reputation among the Americans. If this is right, he just managed to make Bush fool and achieved his goal, go and grats him.

'Which reminds me, where's Halo's outrage at his Prime Minister? I don't recall ever seeing any. '

- Just think of me as meaning Bush and Blair, whenever I say Bush. Or Britain and America, whenever I say America.
We're the faithful lap-dog, so just lump us in there with you folks.
I do think I've given some outrage at Blair. Just back track, you'll see the odd "blair's a wanker" in there, and my laughing at the intelligence reports.

But I'm touched by your concern *hugs and kisses*

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!

That would have proven the coalition right and he would have lost all support. How could France or anyone else cover for him and try to block the Coalition if he proved the Coalition's allegations were true for them before fighting was even over?[/quoet]
How was France going to block the coalition when the coalition was already blazing a trail to Baghdad? If France, et al threw in their lot with the US it would hardly matter from a military perspective.

As an aside, while Saddam was ruthless he was hardly a psychopath. Those who've met and written of him repeatedly denied the applicability of the term. Saddam isn't insane nor irrational, but he was a tyrant, and as one to shoot the messenger, he was likely misinformed by his supporting staff in a number of regards (as can happen to any leader of a

Let me try, again, to articulate the problem so many people have with this whole deal.

Think of the Middle East as a very sick man.
He has several problems that are pretty bad. One of the problems is a cancer. The hope is by removing this cancer (Saddam) with a extremely complicated surgery that the other problems in this sick man will have a better chance of being treated successfully.
There is some opinion that the surgery should be done RIGHT NOW, another group of people think that one more treatment before this surgery might work. The reason for this is that the surgery is so complicated that any fuck up will cause the sick man even more problems.
The Head Surgeon decides that he is going to do it. He ignores the opinions of the junior staff and goes ahead, hoping to finish before his 3 Oclock surgery. As most great Surgeons, he is quite a bit arrogant, and manages to rub alot of people the wrong way in this.
The Surgery starts out great, and the cancer is removed without much complication, but the other problems and factors in man create complications that the surgeon didnt count on. He calls for more assistance, but the people he rubbed the wrong way are now afraid of being caught in this mans mistake and unwilling to open themselves up to a malpractice lawsuit from it.
So here we are.. 2:45, the patient still isnt stable, and the surgeon is trying to hurry up and finish

How was France going to block the coalition when the coalition was already blazing a trail to Baghdad? If France, et al threw in their lot with the US it would hardly matter from a military perspective.


So you don't think France, etc have been stamping their feet and shaking their fists over this whole thing? You don't think they've been trying to make life hard on the Coalition for it?

What the hell are you smoking?


Bowler, what assumptions?

We know they had the weapons at the time of the last gulf war- this is something even Saddam doesn't disagree with(or else why would he claim he'd destroyed them so many years later?).

We know they kept EXTREMELY detailed records about the smallest, most mundane things which certainly means they kept extremely detailed records about the things that were most important to them.

We know that Saddam's problems with the world community were almost entirely because he had -not- come forward with proof that he had destroyed his weapons.

Do you disagree with any of that?

The sentences of weapon-inspectors still echos around.

Remember what they said just beofre the war?

And currently it is US & co who should prove those weaps were there and it was right to attack. But it seems, they can not. and it is very very strange, that half of the western secret services and 130.000 soldiers can not find those 'hidden' stockpiles.

No it's not.
That Faerie dust used to hide the weapons was bought from Tinkerbell.
No one's gonna find those suckers, as long as Peter Pan stays young forever!

PETER PAN YOU ROCK!

Let me try, again, to articulate the problem so many people have with this whole deal.

Your analogies are always sophristy. And over simplified and very telling of the set minds you're trying to appeal to.

Compare Saddam to ebola instead of cancer, and maybe it would be closer to the truth.

I'm surprised you didn't say Saddam was the common cold. No cure for that either, and wait around long enough and it goes away. Only bad thing, you missed a day of work.

Im just trying to get you to see another viewpoint.

A big problem is that any opinion that doesnt completely jibe with that of the administration is labeled as either moronic or treason. That by it self is a problem. The whole process with the administration is way too insular.

A great deal of Americans feel this way Akipt, yet Conservatives think there is no problem with totally steamrolling over any alternative viewpoint and taking false comfort in that belief that they are "true" ideology.
This is a bad thing.
At least 50% of America agrees with this viewpoint Akipt, yet the delusion that our viewpoint is invalid or we are all "Liberal Wackos" only serves to dig yourself into a hole.

It still amazes me though that a Administration that has commited SO MANY errors in this conflict still thinks that other viewpoints are worthless. Its hard for me to grasp such stubborness, its like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Look, "the Other side" isnt evil, it isnt out to destroy America. We have the same goals and same desires for Iraq, but we think there are other ways to go about it. Are there fools on the "liberal" side"? Sure, and they are matched by an equal number on the Conservative side. But the great majority fall somewhere in the middle and share more common ground than ideologues want to admit or aknowledge. For every Micheal Moore, there is a Rush Limbaugh.

Analogies are a useful tool to try to remove the arguement from set and intractable views and into a more neutral setting in order to shine a different perspective on it. Are they "perfect".. no..

Saddam to Ebola isnt accurate. Thats a huge overstatement.

A big problem is that any opinion that doesnt completely jibe with that of the administration is labeled as either moronic or treason.

I'll focus on the treason part. The people you're aligned with speak like this:"Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management — U.S. management." ~ Sen. Ted KennedyThis slander is both untrue and dangerous at a time when hundreds of thousands of Americans are at WAR overseas with criminals and terrorists. This is a lie, pompously and publicly aired to all the world and Al-Jazeera, that is a morally reprehensible pronouncement in almost every way imaginable insomuch as Saddam murdered hundreds of thousands with the full sanction of his apparatus. It waters down what Saddam did and was capable of, just like your previous analogy.

In contrast, a minuscule number of our soldiers sexually mistreated some prisoners, and immediately our military justice system went into action, without any public investigation to get it done by the way. The people doing it are even now being court martialed. To make the two instances at Abu Ghraib morally equivalent, where is the justice that Saddam ever executed to his paid team of murderers, torturers, and rapists? There is none.

President Bush is not a Saddam Hussein, nor a Hitler. Every time one of your politicians says it, they're committing treason in my book. They're hurting the morale of our soldiers overseas, the foreign policy image that both of our political parties once projected in unison, and our goal of bringing peace to the Middle East. We can't succeed if the people we're liberating think we're Saddam, and your Sen. Kennedy knows it. So why make such statements? To get Kerry elected. Dispicable, and treasonous.

A great deal of Americans feel this way Akipt, yet Conservatives think there is no problem with totally steamrolling over any alternative viewpoint and taking false comfort in that belief that they are "true" ideology.

Yes, liberals feel, conservatives think.

Alternate view points? You're the only one on here that I've ever seen research and offer up alternatives. But after reading one or two articles on the Internet about the military or Middle East or whatever, you think you're some expert on it and all of sudden can trump professionals that have devoted their entire lives to their particular expertise. It's laughable.

Back to your concern that I consider all liberals morons. I only do the lalala moron thing, as I've already explained, when they can't get beyond the meme that's so popular in their little cess pool circles. "Bush lied!" "Bush did it for oil!" "Americans butchered the little children on purpose!" "The world hates us because of Bush!" "Americans keeled that wedding!" blah blah blah.

At least 50% of America agrees with this viewpoint Akipt, yet the delusion that our viewpoint is invalid or we are all "Liberal Wackos" only serves to dig yourself into a hole.

When liberals get a better track record of solving the world's problems, we'll start listening.

It still amazes me though that a Administration that has commited SO MANY errors in this conflict still thinks that other viewpoints are worthless.

You got some direct telephone line to W that he just keeps ignoring? And I'm still not convinced that he has committed "SO MANY" errors. Set backs, yes of course. Every president has setbacks. Washington, Lincoln, FDR ... all made mistakes, but we overcome them. I don't recall any history books teaching me about the 12-7 Commission taking FDR's time to answer fucking questions about why he ignored the Japanese threat, all while the Republican members grandstanding for the media so they can sell their books when the war was done. It didn't happen. Wonder why?

Analogies are a useful tool to try to remove the arguement from set and intractable views and into a more neutral setting in order to shine a different perspective on it.

You mean, a good tool to water down the real life issues so that people can "feel" good about their already mindset?

So because Ted Kennedy said something idiotic he represents all people with a different viewpoint than Bushes?
Kinda ridiculous.
But its not treasonous. If our path is weak and on such unsteady ground that its endangered by free speech, then we are not on the correct path.
Freedom of Speech includes the freedom to say something stupid. Being at war doesnt mean that we give up our rights to critisize and dissent. In fact, if we arent in the correct path it is our way of removing ourselves from a bad situation. If the cacaphony of dissent is loud enough, our government responds.
Richard Nixon won the presidency in 1968 on vowing to get us out of Vietnam. Did that make him a traitor? He opposed the war.. He ran on getting us out.. didnt that weaken us? OF course, he only RAN on that promise, he didnt actually deliver. (enduring message is that its Ok to lie to American people to acheive goals)
Its all part of the move republicans have been making since the late 60s.
The reaction to the turbulence of the 1960s was exactly what one would expect. On one end were those who felt that the 1960s did not go far enough. In the middle was the mass of Americans who felt that it was time to slow down, take a few deep breaths, and see where we have been and where we are headed. On the other end were those who wanted to go back -- back to "Father Knows Best." It is in the reaction of this last group that we find the origin of the mean spirited, winner-take-all, destroy-the-opponent, enemies'-list mentality that defines politics at the end of the twentieth century.

In the mid-1970s, two groups reached out to each other. On one side were the political conservatives who would eventually elect Ronald Reagan. On the other side was the "Christian right. The reaction of these two groups to the 1960s and their remedy for what they saw as fundamental wrongs were congruent. Their views were without room for compromise and they would not admit that other views had any validity. These are some of their fundamental views.
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp

Opposition to the war in Vietnam was treason. (Now today it becomes Iraq)
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp

Poor people are responsible for their condition; anyone can make it in America, just get off your lazy butt and get a job.
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp

The only permissible family is mother at home, father at work, and children with scrubbed, glowing faces.
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp

Many of our national problems can be traced to removal of prayer and the Bible from the schools
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp

Any deviation from our definition of family, patriotism, and work is a sure sign of perversion.
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp

Government's role is to leave me alone to make money.
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp

Environmental activism, civil rights laws, and fair labor legislation are all communist inventions/offshoots intended to weaken real Americans.
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp

Anything we can do to further our agenda is fair.

Thats the republican party in a nutshell.

People are starting to see this, and the republicans are going to feel a huge backlash against it. The Idealogues like Limbaugh and Hannity and Coulture, once a great strength for republicans are going to become a great weakness. They are attack dogs, thats all they are and thats all they know. Americans are growing tired of it. It is contrary to who they are as a people and what they believe in.

Yes, liberals feel, conservatives think.
Great example.
Demean, disparage, distort. Destroy
Its bullshit. But its another example of the Conservative effort to claim superiority on the basis of their nature. Like they are higher breed or something. The concept is laughable. Massive generalization and sterotype.

When liberals get a better track record of solving the world's problems, we'll start listening.
FDR seemed to do a pretty good job in that regard. And they dont come much more liberal than him.

And I'm still not convinced that he has committed "SO MANY" errors. Set backs, yes of course. Every president has setbacks.
Not enough troops. (massive, almost unforgivable mistake imo)
Wrong on WMDs (amount, active programs)
Wrong on reaction of Iraqis
Mishandling of Diplomacy

don't recall any history books teaching me about the 12-7 Commission taking FDR's time to answer fucking questions about why he ignored the Japanese threat, all while the Republican members grandstanding for the media so they can sell their books when the war was done. It didn't happen. Wonder why?
hnn.us/articles/107.html (http://hnn.us/articles/107.html)
They did though.

You mean, a good tool to water down the real life issues so that people can "feel" good about their already mindset?
Absolutly not. The best solutions to problems are usually ones that neither side is really happy with, but they can both live with. We have two rational, intelligent sides on the opposite end of an issue. Instead of Republicans and Democrats attacking and attempting to destroy the other with non issues and useless insults, a effort should be made to work together to find common solutions.
It doesnt all have to be about Power and Control, it SHOULD be about doing the right thing for the country in a way that represents what the people want in a way they want it done.

Bush's major problem is that he doesnt project an image of confidence and pretty much hides from the American public at times when he should be making speeches and giving us hope.

He doesnt come across as the leader of a country he looks an activist with an agenda. He doesnt care anymore what we think because he did what he wanted to do at any cost.

"Of course, I want to know why we haven't found a weapon yet," Bush said. "But I still know Saddam Hussein was a threat. And the world is better off without Saddam Hussein."

He is in essence saying "Because I didnt like what he was doing even if I cant prove it, I obviously had the right to attack him."

"Of course, I want to know why we haven't found a weapon yet," Bush said. "But I still know Saddam Hussein was a threat. And the world is better off without Saddam Hussein."

He is in essence saying "Because I didnt like what he was doing even if I cant prove it, I obviously had the right to attack him."

I think Bowler just illustrated why akipt has a problem with analogies.

Bowler, you are TOTALLY skewing his words.

--Cen

Am I really ... care to get the entire quote then if I missed some of it and took it out of context? Your gonna whine and ask for a link arent you? lol.

What I did was not present an analogy, I simply quoted the President from an article. I didnt even cut the beginning or the end. Akipts problems with analogys are they require him to think.

Just cause I know your gonna whine.

here you go (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/13/bush.conference/)

As a matter of fact most of his answers can be summed up as "Blah Blah I have a plan but you wont know it till after November ... blah blah"

Blair already has no chance to be re-elected. Thats the difference.

Wrong, Labour are almost certain to win the next Election, even if Blair stays until then, which he probably woudn't if he believed his being leader would lose Labour the election. He is likely to make a decision during the summer.

Think about it for a second, the people who protest the war most strongly are natural Labour supporters, at most they would stay home and not vote, never cast a vote for the Tories.

Besides, the Tories are far more pro-war and pro-American than Blair could ever be, heck, their leader is a Jew. A transilvanian Jew who looks like Dracula and is tainted with having been in the front bench of a past Tory administration as a controversial Home Secretary.

I think we will have to swallow our anti-war and anti-blairism just to keep the damned Tories off number 10. Besides, why blame Blair when it is so easy to just blame the yanks for everything =)

Odds at the moment show Labour as clear fauvorites 1/3 and the Tories at 9/4

www.willhill.com/iibs/EN/...e=PO408700 (http://www.willhill.com/iibs/EN/buildcoupon.asp?couponchoice=PO408700)

Gambling is legal here btw

'Wrong, Labour are almost certain to win the next Election, even if Blair stays until then, which he probably woudn't if he believed his being leader would lose Labour the election. He is likely to make a decision during the summer.'

- Tories will not be voted in for a long, long time. This is Labour's time now. Everybody knows it.
But will Blair remain the face of Labour? People are very much doubting it. The war and "unquestioning" relationship with Bush, coupled with his blunders over the EU, John Kelly, assylum, so forth.. have really, really dented him. In a major way, and I say that as an avid Labour supporter, not just the liberal that I am.

'Besides, the Tories are far more pro-war and pro-American than Blair could ever be'

- I think that's true for the war point. Blair isn't "pro-war" as a political stance. He isn't a hawk by nature. But when it comes to the Anglo-American relationship, he seems utterly resolved before the situation arises. When it comes to Bush, that guy just can't see straight. Tories more pro-american than Blair? No, I don't think anyone is.

heck, their leader is a Jew.'

- That's actually.. stupid. Being a jew has nothing to do with it. And if yer gonna be racist, you're an idiot.

But the Tories as a whole are - as opposed to the Labour party - yes, are a bit more gun-ho. Just look back to the Irish troubles. Endless terms of being in government, and it was one mistake after the other. Labour are voted in in 1997, and successful peacetalks open up which have resulted in a pretty calm and dissolved Irish front.
But it's true that, without Blair being at the head of Labour, the government would not have chosen to follow America in to its present situation. Sent troops in? I've no doubt. Cooperate and mediate between the UN and America? Definately. But a Blairless labour would definately have kept a political and, ultimately, personal detatchment from the Americans. And would have in NO way stood by and shut up about the new Sharon Israeli plan. Things like that Blair just smiles at and the public here become outraged.
Though of course there's still a good change Blair will remain Prime Minister. Current events of the past 2 years aside, he's been a very good leader. He eclipses whatever the Tory shadow minister has been.

So because Ted Kennedy said something idiotic he represents all people with a different viewpoint than Bushes?
Kinda ridiculous.

So rediculous Sen. Lieberman called on all Democrats to stop being so damned partisan about the Iraqi war. Right, I just found a single moron Democrat and made a point out of it for the hell of it.

But its not treasonous. If our path is weak and on such unsteady ground that its endangered by free speech, then we are not on the correct path.

Oh for the love of God, you wouldn't know treason if it bit you on the ass. Freedom of speech? LMAO.

Richard Nixon won the presidency in 1968 on vowing to get us out of Vietnam. Did that make him a traitor?

Did he equate Kennedy, Johnson, or anyone in the Democrat party to Hitler or Stalin? You're missing the point.

Opposition to the war in Vietnam was treason. (Now today it becomes Iraq)

Oppose the war, fine. Hooray, exercise your freedom of speech. Don't go over to Iraq and cuddle up to Saddam like he's Santa Claus, telling him how evil Bush is. Or better yet, don't meet with our communist enemies, of whom we're currently at war with, to negotiate some peace. That's treason you dumbass, not a freedom.

Poor people are responsible for their condition; anyone can make it in America, just get off your lazy butt and get a job.

The best welfare program is a job. Get them educated and give them the same opportunities as everyone else, and unless they're handicapped in some way, they have every expectation to succeed.

The only permissible family is mother at home, father at work, and children with scrubbed, glowing faces.

My mom used to spit clean my face with her hand, used to piss me off to no end. Grrrr!

Many of our national problems can be traced to removal of prayer and the Bible from the schools

Abu Ghraib.

Any deviation from our definition of family, patriotism, and work is a sure sign of perversion.

Gay marriage, chanting anti-war rallies using signs that say "The only good soldier is a dead soldier" under the guise of being patriotic, and Enron and Martha Stewart .. all are perversions. Yes.

Government's role is to leave me alone to make money.

No, government's role is to govern under the people's authority and to protect the unalienable rights handed down from our Creator. What I do with that freedom is up to me. I can build a church or orphanage, I could run for political office, or I can start business... that's all up to me, not the government.

Environmental activism...

Kyoto protocol is a joke, "Bush wants your kid to die from arsenic water" blah blah blah. I want clean air and water, same as you. I'm just not going to be a whacko about it, and make our country's economy and security suffer for it.

civil rights laws...

If it were up to Democrats, minorities would be slaves and still not allowed to vote. Ask your Sen. Byrd about the KKK and who all founded that little peace loving group.. What party freed the slaves, had the first 6 congressmen and first Senator, and which party voted more in favor of the CIVIL RIGHTS ACTS? Republican.

fair labor legislation...

I prefer free labor and trade, not protectionism and union thugs on every street corner enforcing what's fair or not.

...are all communist inventions/offshoots intended to weaken real Americans.

There's only one group of politicians who are communist dictator huggers, and thats the liberals. You've said previously that Reagan was the greatest president ever. Probably wouldn't surprise you though that Kerry voted against Reagan over 85% of the time, and continously spoke out against his anti-communist and anti-terrorist policies...

Who does Kim Jong Il want as president? He's already made the announcement, Kerry. Who does Castro want as president? He's already made the announcement, Kerry.

Kerry, friend to communists everywhere.

Anything we can do to further our agenda is fair.

LOL!!! Good one. We're not the ones getting our agendas passed by rewriting the Constitution through activist judges are we? Too damned funny dude.

People are starting to see this, and the republicans are going to feel a huge backlash against it. The Idealogues like Limbaugh and Hannity and Coulture, once a great strength for republicans are going to become a great weakness. They are attack dogs, thats all they are and thats all they know. Americans are growing tired of it. It is contrary to who they are as a people and what they believe in.

It's contrary to the American people to see the ACLU and activist judges trying to remove God from everything in the public. "In God We Trust" and "One Nation, Under God", what party is pushing to get that yanked out? Liberals. conservatives aren't getting the backslash, it's you. All of those things were put in my Congress, but you have to go through the Supreme Court to get it taken away. See a little hipocracy in your statements?

The Idealogues like Limbaugh and Hannity and Coulture, once a great strength for republicans are going to become a great weakness.

That's why their ratings are shooting through the roof, and CNN, NYT, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, .. all are seeing their subscribers and viewerships dwindle year after year. Foxnews is kicking their asses. Wonder why.

Demean, disparage, distort. Destroy
Its bullshit. But its another example of the Conservative effort to claim superiority on the basis of their nature. Like they are higher breed or something. The concept is laughable. Massive generalization and sterotype.

LOL!!! I made a quip. You just spent 30 minutes in your stream of thought doing just what you're bitching about. Hilarious.

FDR seemed to do a pretty good job in that regard. And they dont come much more liberal than him.

Yup, I asked about this before. Where are the Harry Trumans, the FDRs of the Democrat party today? I see them in the Joe Lieberman and the Zell Miller, but you liberals today want nothing to do with them. Cast them aside and call them traitors don't you?

Not enough troops. (massive, almost unforgivable mistake imo)

The real problem was we didn't kick the enemy's ass last year in the invasion. Huge mistake, because it's a new type of war. The US military has led the way with the best technology, pin point attacks, and sweeping victories that are almost making war a walk in the park in comparison to the thousands of years and untold number of atrocities in the past. But the age old dictum is still true, there's not peace until you defeat the enemy. And we didn't defeat the Iraqis. The Iraqis should be thanking their gods we didn't have to do this 40 years ago, or they would have really felt the fist of war.

Wrong on WMDs (amount, active programs)

Yup were lied to and manipulated, by hundreds of escaped agents and Chalabi apparently. But that doesn't diminish the threat that he still posed with existing WMDs and all the active programs that you're still ignoring from Kay's testimony because it doesn't help your case any.

Wrong on reaction of Iraqis

See the first answer I gave. The reactions from everywhere but in the Sunni triangle are enthusiastic and hope is real. Elections are being held every week in local towns and villages, and business professionals and town elders are stepping forward in leadership roles. There's rarely any Islamofascists being elected as we first feared, and I hope national elections can be moved up before the November election. If not, this winter at least.

Mishandling of Diplomacy

"You're either with us or against us" ? Is this what you mean by alienation?

Bush knew about the UN oil-for-food programs, the World Bank corruption that is coming out to be just as bad with hundreds of billions of dollars in pay outs. The world stage of diplomacy was bankrupt, pocketing a few and harming millions. Kerry still wants to play their game though.

They did though.

Ooh, learned something. Not surprising how a bunch of isolationists will go with paranoia and conspiracy to support their motivations eh?

Absolutly not. The best solutions to problems are usually ones that neither side is really happy with, but they can both live with. We have two rational, intelligent sides on the opposite end of an issue.

Absolutely yes. You continuously make presentations to appeal to some audience using analogies that are laughable at best, flat out untruthful at worst. Saddam as a cancer? Bush as a policeman? That's the kind of watered down real life sophistry more appropriate for Sesame Street, not real life.

Present the facts, argue the facts. Like the Hastert incident, completely out of context presented he was a fuck tard. Put back in real life context, it made more sense. That's simple, stop with the analogies because you're doing no one any favors.

Oh for the love of God, you wouldn't know treason if it bit you on the ass.
Me and the Government of the United States it seems. As nobody youve accused of treason has ever been charged with it, investigated for it or questioned about it. The only people who make it an issue are those who try to derive a political end from it.

Did he equate Kennedy, Johnson, or anyone in the Democrat party to Hitler or Stalin?
Even if he did, it wouldnt be treason. Neither would be breaking into their campaign headquarters. Thats B&E.. and stupid. But its that "ends justify the means" mentality.

Abu Ghraib.
Ever read "Lord of the Flies"?
human nature is static. No amount of prayer is going to change that. A failure of command created that situation, not the lack of morality of a small group. We had school prayer in the 40s, ever read what some of the US men in the Korean War did? Some sick shit. But thats not a knock on the US, all men, throughout all time, behave like during war. Its the nature of the beast. War is evil.

Ask your Sen. Byrd
I dont live in West Virginia.

LOL!!! Good one. We're not the ones getting our agendas passed by rewriting the Constitution through activist judges are we? Too damned funny dude.
Your not? Really? Scalia, an Opus Dei follower is there again why? Clarence "quick draw" Thomas? Conservatives would stack the Supreme Court FULL of anti abortion judges as fast as Liberals would stack it with pro choice.

There's only one group of politicians who are communist dictator huggers, and thats the liberals.
Its a good thing you said COMMUNIST dictators. Because Republicans have there fair share of dictator hugging going on. Pinochet, Noriega, Marcos, Duvalier, Suharto, Videla, The Saudi Royal Family.
And dont forget the man of the hour.. Good Old Saddam, you know the one, I have a picture of him and Rumsfeld tongue kissing somewhere if ya wanna see it.

Reagan was the greatest president ever.
Ever?
Hardly, but definitly the best one since Kennedy. But the field isnt exactally strong.

I see them in the Joe Lieberman and the Zell Miller, but you liberals today want nothing to do with them. Cast them aside and call them traitors don't you?
I vote for Joe every chance I get. Also met him a couple times. Really great guy. But a great politican isnt just one that says things you like to hear.
Of course, Republicans seem to be doing that to McCain, the tossing aside thing.

Yup were lied to and manipulated, by hundreds of escaped agents and Chalabi apparently. But that doesn't diminish the threat that he still posed with existing WMDs and all the active programs that you're still ignoring from Kay's testimony because it doesn't help your case any.

Its the Presidents JOB to NOT get manipulated and lied to. They have to be able to look at all evidence and make the right decision as to what is credible. Its plainly obvious that this man has a intrest in removing Saddam.
Dont blame Chalabi. Blame the people who trusted him.


The real problem was we didn't kick the enemy's ass last year in the invasion. Huge mistake, because it's a new type of war. The US military has led the way with the best technology, pin point attacks, and sweeping victories that are almost making war a walk in the park in comparison to the thousands of years and untold number of atrocities in the past. But the age old dictum is still true, there's not peace until you defeat the enemy. And we didn't defeat the Iraqis. The Iraqis should be thanking their gods we didn't have to do this 40 years ago, or they would have really felt the fist of war.
Dont need to massacre anyone.
Just enough to secure the area.

Bush knew about the UN oil-for-food programs
Everyone knew about that. I wrote a huge post about it before the Invasion, when I was still trustful of those unworthy of my trust.

Saddam as a cancer? Bush as a policeman?
heh.
Saddam is harmful entity that was causing lingering harm to the region. He was not an Immediate threat at the time of the invasion, but left alone and not dealt with it was inevitable that he would be. Much like..a Tumor.. or a Cancer.
ANd Bush ISNT a policeman?
Wasnt the entire justification for the war the enforcement of UN resolutions? Isnt that something a Policeman does? Takes action for the benefit of others and in support of lawful standards?

the analogies are good, youre just unwilling to see any viewpoint other than your own.

'"Where are the WoMD, mother fucker?" - Halo Eurotrash'

- "Two people were treated for "minor exposure" after the sarin incident but no serious injuries were reported" from the same link.
ROFL
That's it boys. We've discovered the WoMD. Let's go home!

The only people who make it an issue are those who try to derive a political end from it.

I think the politicizing of it has already occurred before someone gets accused of it, in case you didn't notice.

Even if he did, it wouldnt be treason. Neither would be breaking into their campaign headquarters. Thats B&E.. and stupid. But its that "ends justify the means" mentality.

What does this have to do with treason? Nixon was a fuck tard, got what he deserved but damaged the country in the process.

Ever read "Lord of the Flies"?

Yes, reminds me of the Democrat party.

War is evil.

No, some people seperated from God are evil.

Conservatives would stack the Supreme Court FULL of anti abortion judges as fast as Liberals would stack it with pro choice.

Yes, but the difference is, the Constitutional judges would return the legislating back to the state and national congresses, where it belongs.

Its a good thing you said COMMUNIST dictators. Because Republicans have there fair share of dictator hugging going on. Pinochet, Noriega, Marcos, Duvalier, Suharto, Videla, The Saudi Royal Family.
And dont forget the man of the hour.. Good Old Saddam, you know the one, I have a picture of him and Rumsfeld tongue kissing somewhere if ya wanna see it.

And every single one of these dictators want Kerry elected. Funny eh?

Its the Presidents JOB to NOT get manipulated and lied to. They have to be able to look at all evidence and make the right decision as to what is credible. Its plainly obvious that this man has a intrest in removing Saddam.

It's the president's job to protect the American people. All evidence from David Kay and soon to be Duelfer will be he did the right thing by invading Iraq, and was probably too slow at doing it.

Dont blame Chalabi. Blame the people who trusted him.

Typical liberalism. If Chalabi worked against the CPA with Iran or other foreign agencies, he should be arrested, tried, and if found guilty, hung up by his neck in a town square somewhere.

Of course, Republicans seem to be doing that to McCain, the tossing aside thing.

Lieberman and McCain are of the same lot, both liberal.
I would probably vote for Lieberman before McCain actually.

ANd Bush ISNT a policeman?

Uh, no, he isn't. He's President of the United States, governed by the laws of our country and sworn to defend our Constitution from all threats foreign and domestic. By making analogies to being a policeman, it's almost laughable. The two have nothing in common.

He was not an Immediate threat at the time of the invasion, but left alone and not dealt with it was inevitable that he would be.

Pakistani scientist.

the analogies are good, youre just unwilling to see any viewpoint other than your own.

A good laugh, yes.

No, government's role is to govern under the people's authority and to protect the unalienable rights handed down from our Creator.

What rights are those? Since only the Creator can grant rights where are these rights listed out for those of us who dont know them. What happens if people want something different than The Creator? Would those be the witches we burned?

Yes, but the difference is, the Constitutional judges would return the legislating back to the state and national congresses, where it belongs.

Like Bush's "anti gay marriage amendment", because he wont allow the states to choose for themselves. Good for state power. Any state that wants to have gay marriage should and any that dont, shouldnt. Welcome to being a REAL republican. Do you even know what that word means?

What rights are those? Since only the Creator can grant rights where are these rights listed out for those of us who dont know them.



We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.


Little thing called the Declaration of Independence Bowler.

Which is just that.. a wonderful Document with great historical value but zero legal significance.

It was basically our "GFY" letter to England

heres what you are looking for
www.law.cornell.edu/const...l#preamble (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html#preamble)

I believe the KKK was formed as a "terrorist" wing of the Democratic party during reconstruction.

Unfortunately, at the time it was the Republicans who led an unlawful invasion of a country (CSA) and raped/pillaged/plundered its civilians, soldiers, and towns. If you think the Republican party is bad today, look at how many people they killed. All to satisfy the power hungry madness of a dictator named Lincoln. Seems eerily like the claims of certain Democrats today.

Is there a point there?

No democratic legislatures grandparents were even alive in 1865.

Besides, to give you a little history lesson...
Yes, in the past the Democratic Party in the south was a bastion of racists. But then guess what happened? Kennedy and LBJ and embrace of the Democrats for the Civil Rights platform. Once ROCK SOLID in its support for the Democrats, the south became a bit split as many left the party after 1967. Richard Nixon (Yay, him again) reached out to these ex democrats and brought them into the Republican Party.
So there we go.. Thats the historical shift of the 2 Party Platform.
In the 1964 election, with Johnson as president after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the Republican presidential nominee Goldwater came out openly against the passage of the Civil Rights Act, which a majority of his own party in Congress had supported. Goldwater’s far-right campaign was overwhelmingly rejected at the polls, but he carried five states in the Deep South: the four carried by Thurmond in 1948, plus Georgia.

In 1968 Alabama’s segregationist governor George Wallace mounted an independent presidential campaign, which carried four of the five Goldwater states—Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia—as well as Arkansas. But in a sign of things to come, South Carolina followed the lead of Senator Strom Thurmond, who abandoned the Democratic Party, switched to the Republicans, and held the state for Nixon.

The Republican Party took up the long-time political methods of the southern Democrats, using racial demagogy to tie impoverished white workers and small farmers to the ruling aristocracy. In many cases—Thurmond was the forerunner for hundreds—Democratic politicians simply changed party labels while maintaining the same political orientation.

Lott followed a slightly different career path. He began as an aide to a notorious segregationist Democratic congressman, William Colmer. When Colmer retired in 1972, Lott sought to fill the vacancy, but ran as a Republican, not a Democrat, aligning himself with Nixon’s victorious presidential reelection campaign.
And Remember kids, where are the strong Republican leaders coming from? By 1994, when the Republican Party won control of the House of Representatives and the Senate for the first time in 40 years, it controlled the bulk of the congressional delegation from the southern states, and its congressional leadership was nearly all from that region: Newt Gingrich of Georgia, Richard Armey and Tom DeLay of Texas, and Trent Lott of Mississippi.

Little thing called the Declaration of Independence Bowler.
Your right i had no idea the Declaration of Independence was used in court cases. Damn I should have figured that one out a while ago.

This still has nothing to do with Akipts attempts to use The Bible to justify legal decisions. You can call me stupid all you want and make erroneous connections but the truth is the Patriot Act did not increase my freedoms or expand our countries ideals. It gave too much power to a group of people who should not have it. Its not so much what they intended it to do but what it can do with a different president.

Interesting that it was already used against a strip club owner. You say well he deserved it and I say what if he didnt. not good (http://reviewjournal.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&expire=&urlID=8164533&fb=Y&partnerID=565)

Hell thats old news. Go ahead and bury your head in the sand and call yourself a republican while you feed the Feds with power and hope they dont use it against you.

www.washingtonpost.com/ac...ge=printer (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A51423-2004Apr28?language=printer)

Keep saying ... "Its all okay, Bush would never decieve me, its all okay, Bush would never decieve me..."

Sealed court orders and such is nothing new or special to the Patriot Act, as the FBI has had that power long before the act was passed:

www.refuseandresist.org/resist_this/043001indymedia.html (http://www.refuseandresist.org/resist_this/043001indymedia.html)

[T]he Independent Media Center in Seattle was served with a sealed court order by two FBI agents and an agent of the US Secret Service. The terms of the sealed order prevented IMC volunteers from publicizing its terms...~ 4/21/2001

The patriot act, in and of itself isnt a horrible thing really. It allows for better sharing of information and really only expands on the "speedy information" principle. It doesnt take any rights, but steps closer to a more powerful law enforcement apparatus. Which is good and bad.

The problem I have is in its origin. I dont like that the fact that it is a reaction to a event. I would have been ALOT more comfortable with it had it evolved in a Pro-Active sense.
What happens if/when we get hit again? Do we decide that we need to go even farther?
Is this act a reaction to 9/11?
I cant really decide if it is or a pro-active step to combat inherant weakness in our police forces.

I guess its a deeper question than that even. Has power been created, is it even possible? Or is there a finite amount of power that is being pulled at from 2 directions. One is the rights of private citizens and the other is the duties of the police. These 2 forces naturally come in conflict by their very nature. Has 9/11 artifically tipped the balance in the favor of the Police?
I guess time will tell. The test for this is not now, or even in the next few years, but in the next 10-20 years as the limits and the scope of the Patriot Act are tested.
Is the Patriot Act the antithesis of Miranda?

Ok - let's say a person in Iraq was just happily walking around in the desert with his camels, minding his own business, when suddenly, lo and behold, the sand shifts at his feet. He investigates the ground and finds that a metal sheet is covering a hole in the ground! Inside the hole, he sees what appears to be a large missile-type thing.

"That scrap metal will sell for a lot!" he thinks to himself,
"I'm going to hide it away in my tent this very moment and try to find a buyer, it's probably a harmless thing from the war sixteen years ago, like that silly sarin shell."

Unfortunately, however, after a short time the man begins showing signs of radiation poisoning and soon after dies.

Let's say that what he found was a nuclear missile of some sort. It only killed one person so far, so is it a WoMD? If the sarin had been used correctly, would it not be a WoMD?


True, that one sarin shell doesn't account for the whole war, but it certainly means that there's got to be more somewhere. Most of it is probably in Syria or the like. I wouldn't even be surprised if France or Hans Blix himself was hiding it, lol.

but the truth is the Patriot Act did not increase my freedoms or expand our countries ideals. It gave too much power to a group of people who should not have it.


It wasn't meant to expand your freedoms, it was meant to allow law enforcement agencies to do their job easier.

Who do you think it gave power to that shouldn't have it? It didn't give any new powers to anyone.

Oh, and you asked where you could find a list of those rights, and I showed you.

If you're stupid enough not to realize that the Declaration of Independence is a view into the mindset and thoughts behind the founding of our country and the base principles for the writing of the constitution..well..you're about as smart as I give you credit for.

'Ok - let's say a person in Iraq was just happily walking around in the desert with his camels'

- /sigh

'Let's say that what he found was a nuclear missile of some sort. It only killed one person so far, so is it a WoMD?'

- Yes. Because a nuclear missle can kill about 100, 000 people on impact, and destroy half a city.

'If the sarin had been used correctly, would it not be a WoMD?'

- Uhh.. no. What with the 155mm shell not capable of MASS DESTRUCTION!
Argghh it's driving me bonkers! What part of "mass destruction" are we not grasping here? The "mass" part? Or the "destruction" part? Dictionary. Find. Buy. Whack self over head with it.
See what I mean about Bush having made certain phrases completely altered to his cause? Freedom, liberty.. terrorist seems to mean anyone who kills an American.
"Let's invade Iraq!"
POW POW POW!
"Omg, they are shooting us, those damn iraqi terrorists!"

Hey a cookie.

Camels in Iraq (http://www.acadiananow.com/news/html/7BD02505-6EEB-4015-B803-2EF80608AEE0.shtml)

“Did you see camels?” a student from teacher Darlene Hamilton’s class asked.

“Yes,” said Martinez, cloaked in her military-issue desert camouflage.

“There are tons of camels in Iraq. Sometimes, you see the camels all in a row, like elephants. We’ll just drive down the road in our Humvees, and all of a sudden, there will be this huge herd of camels trying to cross the road,” she said.

http://www.armamentdawgs.com/Pics/Camels01.jpg

Yes. Because a nuclear missle can kill about 100, 000 people on impact, and destroy half a city.

'If the sarin had been used correctly, would it not be a WoMD?'

- Uhh.. no. What with the 155mm shell not capable of MASS DESTRUCTION!
Argghh it's driving me bonkers! What part of "mass destruction" are we not grasping here?

A WMD is a WMD is a WMD. What are you failing to grasp about that? Do you simply not believe that biological weapons can mete out the same devastation to life as can a nuclear weapon? There's a reason that weapons of mass destruction are characterized under NBC - Nuclear, Biological and Chemical.

Do you not remember Saddam gassing 5,000+ Kurds (http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html)? How about Iran? Albeit, not with Sarin (unless there was another incident I'm not aware of), but the capability and method of delivery is the same. I can only imagine the loss of life had he used a more powerful nerve agent like sarin (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/7050/).

What part of mass destruction are you not understanding? Just because the delivery vehicle (grenade, shell, missile, etc.) isn't large enough to deliver "mass" destruction doesn't invalidate its contents within or make them any less of a WMD. Sheesh.

--Cen

'Just because the delivery vehicle (grenade, shell, missile, etc.) isn't large enough to deliver "mass" destruction doesn't invalidate its contents within or make them any less of a WMD'

- That's EXACTLY what it means, you fucking cretin.
That 155mm ISNT A WMD. It can't cause mass destruction.
Which is why I was blowing a blood vessel earlier in the thread when ppl were yelling "omg a whole bunch of this stuff set off over new york could kill thousands of ppl!! this is a wmd!!" well it may beable to do that.. but not this 155mm 20yr old fucking shell found on the road side set up by bloody twats who most likely never even knew it existed.
Isn't a WMD.
Isn't justification for this war.
Not even being taken seriously for the Primo Swayer, Bush.

The desperation for validation is stinking this place out. It's getting so fucking old.

You also have to account for the fact that improperly stored Sarin decomposes and ceases to be active, even when the compounds are not mixed and the unit is "binary", as was the shell.
however
www.cbwinfo.com/Chemical/Nerve/GB.shtml (http://www.cbwinfo.com/Chemical/Nerve/GB.shtml)
as that tells us the process that Iraq used eliminated the need for high tech places to properly store the chemicals, which if together would "degrade to less than 10% in 2 years"

what the Iraqis had come up with was the shell was stored with 2 inert chemicals and right before loading and firing a Iraqi Solider with a gas mask would insert into the shell a 3rd compund that would create Sarin.
So unless the 3 component was added, it was not a WMD, but components for one.
splitting hairs sure, but lets call things what they actually are.

I had heard that tests showed actual amounts of sarin, not just the binary chemicals used to make it. I could be mistaken though...lord knows information out of Iraq is distorted by all sides.

No more has been found yet (though I don't know if any serious searching is underway with all the fighting still going on). Here's hoping it was an isolated leftover.

lord knows information out of Iraq is distorted by all sides

Yes, except for Halo. He knows exactly what's going on.:rolleyes :lol

Funny how the mustard gas gets ignored too :)

Tests Confirm Sarin Gas in Baghdad Bomb (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040525/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_sarin_2)

Guess my previous post was premature, both were AP though.

Anyway...

what the Iraqis had come up with was the shell was stored with 2 inert chemicals and right before loading and firing a Iraqi Solider with a gas mask would insert into the shell a 3rd compund that would create Sarin. So unless the 3 component was added, it was not a WMD, but components for one.

Really?The shell was a binary type, which has two chambers containing relatively safe chemicals. When the round is fired from an artillery gun, its rotation mixes the chemicals to create sarin, which is supposed to disperse when the shell strikes its target. No third ingrediant needed.

well then the sarin may have been degraded to such a point that it was no longer a lethal substance.

The most notorious possessor of sarin is, of course, Iraq, which not only produced this agent but which also used it in substantial quantities against both its enemies in the Iran-Iraq war and against its own citizens.

During its war with Iran, Iraq initiated the use of chemical weapons, beginning with sulfur mustard in 1983, progressing to tabun in 1984, and then to sarin (and eventually VX) beginning in 1987. Sarin was also used in attacks on Iraqi civilians, most notably in the March, 1988 destruction of the Halabja, where civilian deaths caused by a cocktail of different agents have been estimated at 5000.

Iraq mass produced sarin during the Iran-Iraq war with the expectation that it would be used quickly, and they therefore skipped several purification steps. Fresh agent was about 60% pure and heavily contaminated with hydrogen fluoride (which, of course, also causes health problems in exposed individuals). When production caught up with demand, the Iraqis started storing their sarin in refrigerated "igloos" to prolong its storage life. However, even when stored in the igloos, the material rapidly degraded, becoming less than 10% pure within 2 years.

This was one of the factors that lead the Iraqis to investigate binary weapons, for which sarin is particularly well suited. While they had not mastered the art of manufacturing binary munitions in which the mixing of the precursors occured on firing at the time of the invasion of Kuwait, they had developed a simple process for generating the agent immediately before use: a warhead or shell would be given a partial fill of isopropanal (and often cyclohexanol, a precursor for the related nerve agent GF, sometimes known as cyclosarin) and stored along with plastic containers of methylphosphonic difluoride (DF). Shortly before the munition was to be used an Iraqi soldier would be provided with a gas mask and would pour an appropriate amount of the DF into the munition. This eliminated storage issues.

For the shell to be as old as it seems to be, the shell would have had to have been stored at a facility capable of not allowing the mixture to decompose and still have a viable agent inside. Burying in the sand is not included in that. For that to be the case, then this would be part of a larger stockpile also stored at such a facility.
Or in the Alternative.
It was improperaly stored (could have been salvaged dud, or forgotten artifact) and the Sarin would have had degraded to such a point that it was no longer lethal.