Jump to content

where are those ******* wmd's?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You mean the ones Syria is using on the rebels? Those Iraqi chemical weapons?

laughable!! haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

what the f**k is up with this dude, anyway? it's like he had a brainfart that blew his hair back to a decade past. but yeah. some muther f**ker in saddams administration said the chemical weapons went to syria while bush was dicking around with the UN inspections. now obama says these weapons are being used. and chickenhead here starts a brainfart of a thread about it. see how the dots are all connected?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

laughable!! haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

what the f**k is up with this dude, anyway? it's like he had a brainfart that blew his hair back to a decade past. but yeah. some muther f**ker in saddams administration said the chemical weapons went to syria while bush was dicking around with the UN inspections. now obama says these weapons are being used. and chickenhead here starts a brainfart of a thread about it. see how the dots are all connected?

It is laughable. I do not believe we should have invaded Iraq due to cost concerns but I thought it was common knowledge that the "wmds" were smuggled out of the country into Jordan and Syria...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

precisely why cons are idiots

Who of these were "cons" (although with the common definition, you might just have something there):

 

[source, so I didn't have to type it out]

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Origins: All of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them

Disclaimer: Not all of them thought we should go to war.

 

 

But each one of them thought there were WMDs. And they were right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who of these were "cons" (although with the common definition, you might just have something there):

 

[source, so I didn't have to type it out]

Disclaimer: Not all of them thought we should go to war.

 

 

But each one of them thought there were WMDs. And they were right.

 

Your effort here is laudable but our friends on the left have been told what to think on this and is impenetrable to further discussion or consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were no WMDs. There was no trace of any WMD program after the first Gulf War, and no trazce of them going to Syria or anywhere else.

 

Anyone who tells you otherwise is pushing delusions as fact.

Saddams own military has admitted to moving chem weapons to Syria.

 

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/071912-618875-syria-chemical-weapons-came-from-iraq-.htm?p=full

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were no WMDs. There was no trace of any WMD program after the first Gulf War, and no trazce of them going to Syria or anywhere else.

 

Anyone who tells you otherwise is pushing delusions as fact.

 

Obama's top intelligence official General Clapper has said that Iraqi WMD's are in Syria, sent there before the war.

 

Why would Obama put someone "delusional" in such an important position, moonbat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who'd have thought Saddam Hussein would be so sneaky as to smuggle his WMD's outside the country before he was invaded? Regardless, the buck stops with the POTUS: Bush should have intervened sooner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who'd have thought Saddam Hussein would be so sneaky as to smuggle his WMD's outside the country before he was invaded? Regardless, the buck stops with the POTUS: Bush should have intervened sooner.

there are three branches of government...if the republicans had sided with the war mongering dems and bush sooner...sure then we could have gone in earlier..but it took time for the repubs to get on board with war

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are three branches of government...if the republicans had sided with the war mongering dems and bush sooner...sure then we could have gone in earlier..but it took time for the repubs to get on board with war

 

You make a good point, here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

laughable!! haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

what the f**k is up with this dude, anyway? it's like he had a brainfart that blew his hair back to a decade past. but yeah. some muther f**ker in saddams administration said the chemical weapons went to syria while bush was dicking around with the UN inspections. now obama says these weapons are being used. and chickenhead here starts a brainfart of a thread about it. see how the dots are all connected?

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if Saddam had WMDs, which is dubious, We still didn't need to invade.

I can agree with this. Saddam needed a $5 solution. A sniper at long range. Kill him and wait. If the new leader is similarly hell bent on funding global terror, kill them too. Repeat until you get a leader that is not a threat to his neighbors. Invasion was costly and will not pay off in the long or short term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can agree with this. Saddam needed a $5 solution. A sniper at long range. Kill him and wait. If the new leader is similarly hell bent on funding global terror, kill them too. Repeat until you get a leader that is not a threat to his neighbors. Invasion was costly and will not pay off in the long or short term.

I have to agree. A sniper would've solved a lot of problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if Saddam had WMDs, which is dubious, We still didn't need to invade.

 

I didn't support regime change in Iraq but it's understandable, made more so by Saddam's ties to terrorism. It's now impossible to know what would have happened had we left Saddam in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I didn't support regime change in Iraq but it's understandable, made more so by Saddam's ties to terrorism. It's now impossible to know what would have happened had we left Saddam in place.

I'm pretty confident the body count wouldn't be so high. Thats one of the reasons why war should be the last solution, not the first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty confident the body count wouldn't be so high. Thats one of the reasons why war should be the last solution, not the first.

 

It depends on the kind of attack managed, should there be one.

 

I agree that war should be the last desperate resort. The Bush administration was surprised Saddam didn't take the chance to comfortably retire. Instead, he got the noose.

 

 

Still, that's no reason not to discuss it. Good op, by the way.

 

Certainly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean the ones Syria is using on the rebels? Those Iraqi chemical weapons?

Never happen dumbass. Chemical weapons have a shelf life. Any chemical weapon would have been made prior to inspectors searching the country for them, so 15-20 years ago?

 

At high pH, sarin decomposes rapidly to nontoxic phosphonic acid derivatives. Sarin degrades after a period of several weeks to several months. The shelf life can be shortened by impurities in precursor materials. According to the CIA, some Iraqi sarin had a shelf life of only a few weeks, owing mostly to impure precursors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...