I thought Iraq didn't have any WMD

August · 07-31-12, 03:24 PM

Who said anything about justifying a war? The claim was made that Iraq had no WMD's. Not "No new WMD's", no WMD's. Obviously this is not true whether you want to admit it or not

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCIP

There is a slight difference between weapons and materials remaining from them. If these are weapons, then so are all the B-52s sitting at Davis-Monthan with their wings cut off, flagrantly in violation of previous treaties regarding them. Cause, you know, they'll be up and flying in no time..

Invalid comparison. There's a big difference between the remains of an aircraft and the remains of a Chemical weapon munition. For one thing just walking by the aircraft isn't likely to kill you...

CCIP · 07-31-12, 03:27 PM

Well, there's lots of things that can kill you when you walk by them. Spent nuclear fuel, industrial waste and large farm animals among these. The issue is whether you can put it in a warhead and launch it at a target. My understanding is that these did not qualify as WMDs anymore by that definition.

vienna · 07-31-12, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Well, there's lots of things that can kill you when you walk by them. Spent nuclear fuel, industrial waste and large farm animals among these. The issue is whether you can put it in a warhead and launch it at a target. My understanding is that these did not qualify as WMDs anymore by that definition.

Exactly; the "waste" was/is not in a weaponized state. If it can't be used as a weapon, it is not a weapon...

...

August · 07-31-12, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCIP

Well, there's lots of things that can kill you when you walk by them. Spent nuclear fuel, industrial waste and large farm animals among these. The issue is whether you can put it in a warhead and launch it at a target. My understanding is that these did not qualify as WMDs anymore by that definition.

I said "wasn't likely" not "can". You "can" kill someone with a UN peace plan (if it's a hard cover edition). Is it likely? Aside from boring you to death, no.

But you must admit that chemical weapons, even degraded are a lot more dangerous than the most toxic of B-52 airplane part. As for putting them in a warhead you do realize that by middle eastern standards that warhead can be a backpack carried by a suicide bomber.

Takeda Shingen · 07-31-12, 03:30 PM

We went in there over centerfuges, VX and Anthrax. What we found was 50-year-old degraded mustard gas and a pair of toxic sites that were destroyed in 1991. To point to the latter and say 'See! I told you!' is a disingenous line of argument at best.

Ducimus · 07-31-12, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

We went in there over centerfuges, VX and Anthrax. What we found was 50-year-old degraded mustard gas and a pair of toxic sites that were destroyed in 1991. To point to the latter and say 'See! I told you!' is a disingenous line of argument at best.

Pretty much my thoughts. Particuarly when the word residual is being tossed around. I honestly wish Saddam did have stockpiles of NBC. At the time i thought we did need to go over there, because we all thought he had them. Turns out he didn't, we looked the buffoon, sunk untold amounts of cash into another 2nd world excrement hole, and now we're stuck with a credit card bill from hell.

mookiemookie · 07-31-12, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Who said anything about justifying a war?

Justification of the war was the whole point of making the claim that Iraq had WMDs in the first place. Otherwise you're just arguing semantics.

Skybird · 07-31-12, 04:05 PM

Nobody ever denied that Saddam has hads chemicals in the past. Point is he got rid of them several years before the war 2003. What'S left is residual material from those years. And it has not been a secret. It is known since many years that residual traces of former Iraqi chemical arsenal exists. It was "revealed" already in 2004 I think, or 2005.

Takeda is right on target with his comments.

krashkart · 07-31-12, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Who said anything about justifying a war?

August -- with all due respect. These guys were in charge in '03. As far as I know they lied to us. Until we have concrete evidence to the contrary I will always believe that.

August · 07-31-12, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krashkart

August -- with all due respect. These guys were in charge in '03. As far as I know they lied to us. Until we have concrete evidence to the contrary I will always believe that.

Why so defensive? We were told by those who said these guys lied that there were no wmd's in Iraq. That's obviously not true. That has nothing to do with whether those guys were liars or just mistaken.

krashkart · 07-31-12, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Why so defensive? We were told by those who said these guys lied that there were no wmd's in Iraq. That's obviously not true. That has nothing to do with whether those guys were liars or just mistaken.

Not defensive. I think they lied to us. I don't abide by liars. That's all.

August · 07-31-12, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krashkart

Not defensive. I think they lied to us. I don't abide by liars. That's all.

And you're entitled to your opinion. I don't share it but you're entitled to it.

CCIP · 07-31-12, 07:19 PM

Also I'm not sure it matters whether they lied or not. They had a big responsibility to be forthright and they screwed up, with tens of thousands of Americans (and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis) paying with life or limb for a dubious cause as a result. They didn't trust international organizations who told them not to do it, and instead went with their own sources that later proved to be at best negligent, at worst guilty of falsifying evidence. I don't think two or three guys deserve all the blame, but they were the ones in the seat of power and if not them, then who? I think history has every reason to judge them harshly as a result.

August · 07-31-12, 07:36 PM

See there where you and I disagree CCIP. I think it was right to take out Saddam and his regime for other equally important reasons. As far as I'm concerned they were only finishing the job that should have been finished back in 1991. Saddam was a knife pointed at our back.

That doesn't mean I think they did a good job of it but it did have to be done.

Blood_splat · 07-31-12, 07:40 PM

I'm starting to think it was about establishing bases now.

07-31-12, 03:27 PM	#2
CCIP Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Waterloo, Canada Posts: 8,700 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 2	Well, there's lots of things that can kill you when you walk by them. Spent nuclear fuel, industrial waste and large farm animals among these. The issue is whether you can put it in a warhead and launch it at a target. My understanding is that these did not qualify as WMDs anymore by that definition. __________________ There are only forty people in the world and five of them are hamburgers. -Don Van Vliet (aka Captain Beefheart)

07-31-12, 04:05 PM	#8
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,719 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Nobody ever denied that Saddam has hads chemicals in the past. Point is he got rid of them several years before the war 2003. What'S left is residual material from those years. And it has not been a secret. It is known since many years that residual traces of former Iraqi chemical arsenal exists. It was "revealed" already in 2004 I think, or 2005. Takeda is right on target with his comments. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

07-31-12, 07:19 PM	#13
CCIP Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Waterloo, Canada Posts: 8,700 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 2	Also I'm not sure it matters whether they lied or not. They had a big responsibility to be forthright and they screwed up, with tens of thousands of Americans (and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis) paying with life or limb for a dubious cause as a result. They didn't trust international organizations who told them not to do it, and instead went with their own sources that later proved to be at best negligent, at worst guilty of falsifying evidence. I don't think two or three guys deserve all the blame, but they were the ones in the seat of power and if not them, then who? I think history has every reason to judge them harshly as a result. __________________ There are only forty people in the world and five of them are hamburgers. -Don Van Vliet (aka Captain Beefheart)

07-31-12, 07:36 PM	#14
August Wayfaring Stranger Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 23,231 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	See there where you and I disagree CCIP. I think it was right to take out Saddam and his regime for other equally important reasons. As far as I'm concerned they were only finishing the job that should have been finished back in 1991. Saddam was a knife pointed at our back. That doesn't mean I think they did a good job of it but it did have to be done. __________________ Flanked by life and the funeral pyre. Putting on a show for you to see.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

07-31-12, 03:30 PM	#5
Takeda Shingen Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2000 Posts: 8,643 Downloads: 19 Uploads: 0	We went in there over centerfuges, VX and Anthrax. What we found was 50-year-old degraded mustard gas and a pair of toxic sites that were destroyed in 1991. To point to the latter and say 'See! I told you!' is a disingenous line of argument at best.

07-31-12, 07:40 PM	#15
Blood_splat Samurai Navy Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Beneath the waves Posts: 568 Downloads: 20 Uploads: 0	I'm starting to think it was about establishing bases now.