If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Five hundred WMDs found in Iraq. Cue people explaining why these don't fall under the "all chemical weapons" that Saddam claimed he destroyed   (foxnews.com) divider line 1082
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

47275 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Jun 2006 at 11:40 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1082 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-06-21 10:08:31 PM
From 2003?

Puh-lease.

Do you have any grasp what the phrase "shelf life" means?

Now, be a good little twit and go back to boffing your sister.
 
2006-06-21 10:10:02 PM
I say cue the "If true, why the fark were these not mentioned earlier" skeptics.

Liberal or otherwise.
 
2006-06-21 10:10:21 PM
Arn't these the sarin and mustard gas shells from pre-gulf war 1?
 
2006-06-21 10:11:02 PM
Remember: only "liberals" disagree with Team GOP's quarterback, and anyone who disagrees with Team GOP's quarterback is a "liberal."

The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s

But I sure bet they could be used to produce a mushroom cloud in New York City in 45 minutes, right? Right?
 
2006-06-21 10:11:08 PM
i27.photobucket.com

"This twenty-year old, inert sample of mustard gas is why the world must invade Iraq immediately."
 
2006-06-21 10:11:48 PM
I hope it's true. I doubt it, but I hope it is.

/Not that it'll matter. There will always be the skeptics.
 
2006-06-21 10:12:34 PM
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/21.html#a8805

To summarize: Date back to Iran/Iraq war days.
 
2006-06-21 10:13:18 PM
i79.photobucket.com
 
nrw [TotalFark]
2006-06-21 10:13:20 PM
Yeah somehow in 4 years not a single member of the Iraqi military, and then the "Saddam loyalist" insurgency could find any of these to use as a weapon but the US could be attacked in 45 minutes.

The sad thing is, I wanted this to be true for so long, but after all the lies, all I can think of is its another lie to proper up quickly waning support.
 
2006-06-21 10:14:24 PM
flatt: I say cue the "If true, why the fark were these not mentioned earlier" skeptics.

Liberal or otherwise.


Okay... if true, why wasn't this mentioned earlier?

/Otherwise.

No offense, submitter, but I'll believe it when other news sources start picking it up.
 
nrw [TotalFark]
2006-06-21 10:14:48 PM

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.



Oh that explains it.
 
2006-06-21 10:14:53 PM
This is Chewbacca. Chewbacca does not make sense.

Look at the monkey!...
 
2006-06-21 10:15:55 PM
Let's assume it's true. For the sake of hypothesis.

Does this alone justify 3 years of war and thousands and thousands of people dead?

Sick f*cks.
 
2006-06-21 10:17:16 PM
No_47: Does this alone justify 3 years of war and thousands and thousands of people dead?

Sick f*cks.


You're a glass is half empty kinda guy. Aren't ya?
 
2006-06-21 10:17:36 PM
So that's what? 1 WMD found for every 3 days since 2003?
Holy crap.
 
2006-06-21 10:19:00 PM
nrw: Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.


Had to be repeated.
 
2006-06-21 10:19:33 PM
"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."
 
2006-06-21 10:19:54 PM
FTFA: "This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

Quoted for even more emphasis. This isn't what our government said they had. Smitty is an asshat.
 
2006-06-21 10:20:13 PM
rppp01a: Had to be repeated.

True, but I'd like to know why they weren't in working condition. Was it years of neglect? Or were they disassembled? Or something far more spooky?
 
2006-06-21 10:22:12 PM
Pale_Green_Pants_With_Nobody_Inside_Them
You're a glass is half empty kinda guy. Aren't ya?

There's nothing in the glass. More guys younger than me have been killed by questionable insurgent tactics than could have been killed by these weapons of mass destruction. Don't crucify me here, or drag me into one of these heated discussions. I'm not attacking any specific government or political party.
I just think war is f*cking retarded.
 
2006-06-21 10:23:04 PM
No_47, you may think I'm a nitwit wannabe-tech attention whore, but I like your thinking politically.
 
2006-06-21 10:23:19 PM
Pale_Green_Pants_With_Nobody_Inside_Them: True, but I'd like to know why they weren't in working condition.

Same reason your milk wouldn't be in working condition after six months in the fridge.

Toxic chemicals and gasses are not Twinkies. They don't last forever.
 
2006-06-21 10:23:35 PM
Interesting bit of a story I found from Feb. 2003:

Similary, Iraq initially told UNSCOM that it had produced 3,080 tons of mustard gas, but in 1995 the regime reduced that figure to 2,850 tons. UNSCOM reported Iraq's mustard gas to be at least 80 percent pure and determined that it could be stored for long periods of time, both in bulk and in weaponized form. Experts state that in its distilled form, mustard gas has a long life, can be stockpiled for decades, and is relatively easy to produce and load into munitions. Iraq admitted filling approximately 550 artillery shells with mustard gas but says it misplaced them shortly after the Gulf War.

So its not just the stuff we gave them and could possibly be the "lost" munitions.
 
2006-06-21 10:23:50 PM
How far behind in the polls was Santorum before today?
 
2006-06-21 10:24:21 PM
No_47: I just think war is f*cking retarded.

In general? This is not a flame attempt. I just want to know your thoughts. Is any war justified?
 
2006-06-21 10:25:31 PM
weezbo: Toxic chemicals and gasses are not Twinkies. They don't last forever.

Right, but how long do they last? is it possible that they were in working order in 2003? (keeping in mind, I have seen that these are not the WMDs that we were told were there.)
 
2006-06-21 10:26:02 PM
FTFA:
Asked why the Bush administration, if it had known about the information since April or earlier, didn't advertise it, Hoekstra conjectured that the president has been forward-looking and concentrating on the development of a secure government in Iraq.

This President is so forward looking that he couldn't be bothered tossing up some "facts" to prove that all of us that called him a liar were wrong, wrong, wrong?

Not bloody likely.

This is about as important as a nun's fart and equally as useless.

If there was even a hint of "I told you so" in those documents this White House would have had them wholesale declassified and spread on the evening news just like that.

Proof that there is nothing to see here is that the White House thinks there is nothing to see here.
 
2006-06-21 10:26:03 PM
Pale_Green_Pants_With_Nobody_Inside_Them: Or something far more spooky?

I like the spooky thing. Let's go with it.
 
2006-06-21 10:28:17 PM
No_47 has a "subscription to the attitude that the glass is not only half empty, but broken and laced with cyanide."

Silly wars. This could have easily been justified, but they f*cked it up. They made up reasons that collapsed, when perfectly good reasons existed.

They roll a 1 everytime.
 
2006-06-21 10:28:53 PM
ggowins: How far behind in the polls was Santorum before today?

18 poins last i heard, and that was this afternoon.
 
2006-06-21 10:29:00 PM
Pale_Green_Pants_With_Nobody_Inside_Them: Right, but how long do they last? is it possible that they were in working order in 2003? (keeping in mind, I have seen that these are not the WMDs that we were told were there.)

I think the standard shelf life of munitions like these is somewhere around the 6 month mark, and that is being generous. Sarin only lasts a few weeks.
 
2006-06-21 10:29:55 PM
Jon_da_Brockman: I think the standard shelf life of munitions like these is somewhere around the 6 month mark, and that is being generous. Sarin only lasts a few weeks.

So the fact that these weapons were in unusable condition is meaningless to the WMD debate.
 
2006-06-21 10:32:38 PM
Pale_Green_Pants_With_Nobody_Inside_Them: Is any war justified?

Fighting nazis that have a good shot of winning and taking over the world: OK justified

Rinky dink middle eastern country that's laughable to everyone: not so much.

I think it takes more of a threat than iraq posed to justify committing billions of dollars and thousands of lives. That's a big bill to have to pay.
 
2006-06-21 10:33:40 PM
ggowins: How far behind in the polls was Santorum before today?

18 points.
 
2006-06-21 10:34:34 PM
Pale_Green_Pants_With_Nobody_Inside_Them: Right, but how long do they last?

Well, according to the mention above, it appears that they could last decades, the mustard gas, anyway. My guess is that you need better conditions to store it in than were apparently present where these shells were found, but I could be wrong about that as well.

Sarin has a shelf life measured in weeks. If any was found still effective now, having been produced in 1991 or earlier, we'd have reason to fear Iraqi scientists and their marvelous storage techniques.
 
2006-06-21 10:34:51 PM
Well how much would be enough to make you guys happy?

Maybe if the enemy DID know how to use them properly and managed to kill a few American soldiers with those weapons. Would that satisfy you? How many would it take?

/just curious.
 
2006-06-21 10:35:34 PM
Pale_Green_Pants_With_Nobody_Inside_Them: So the fact that these weapons were in unusable condition is meaningless to the WMD debate.

Not really, since they are from 91.
 
2006-06-21 10:35:58 PM
Great Caesar's Toast: Rinky dink middle eastern country that's laughable to everyone: not so much.

I think it takes more of a threat than iraq posed to justify committing billions of dollars and thousands of lives. That's a big bill to have to pay.


I like to argue, so see this in that respect:

When Germany started its shiat in the 30's they were seen as rinky dink because of the hurt that the allies put on them after WWI. We thought, and thought, and thought that, but we were wrong. Had we (England/France) invaded when they built their first battleship over the limit imposed on them, they never would have become the threat that they did.

/not to mention ignoring sudentan land, austria, and checz
 
2006-06-21 10:36:20 PM
z_gringo: Maybe if the enemy DID know how to use them properly and managed to kill a few American soldiers with those weapons. Would that satisfy you? How many would it take?

personally i would settle for the ones Bush & Co. claimed could form a msuhroom cloud over a major US city being found unused.
 
2006-06-21 10:36:52 PM
Oh horseshiat.
 
2006-06-21 10:37:34 PM
Norad: Oh horseshiat.

I hadn't thought about that angle.
 
2006-06-21 10:37:44 PM
z_gringo: Well how much would be enough to make you guys happy?

Something dangerous - something that lived up to the hype we were told - something worth 2500 dead Americans - something worth a trillion dollars...these are just off the top of my head.
 
2006-06-21 10:38:08 PM
Pale_Green_Pants_With_Nobody_Inside_Them: So the fact that these weapons were in unusable condition is meaningless to the WMD debate.

Well, not helpful if your intention is to use it as an ad hoc justification for the war or a cheerleading of the pre-war intelligence. It's not even helpful to the argument that "Saddam didn't destroy all of his WMD munitions" since our government has managed to lose nukes and so you can't assume that all weapons can be accounted for at all times, even with the best of intentions.
 
2006-06-21 10:38:18 PM
z_gringo: Maybe if the enemy DID know how to use them properly and managed to kill a few American soldiers with those weapons. Would that satisfy you? How many would it take?

img.fark.com More good news for liberals!

Yeah, we were all cheering for Saddam to nuke the soldiers.
 
2006-06-21 10:38:51 PM
Yes yes yes... we know Saddam had chemical weapons. Damn, we still have the receipts!
 
2006-06-21 10:39:09 PM
weezbo: so you can't assume that all weapons can be accounted for at all times, even with the best of intentions.

still, it defies probablity that NOTHING would have beenf ound by now. (and no, this doesn't count)
 
2006-06-21 10:39:10 PM
If true, I'll eat crow.

Either way, it doesn't change how the whole 'mission' has become a huge clusterfark.

Boobies!
 
2006-06-21 10:39:54 PM
Pale_Green_Pants_With_Nobody_Inside_Them
In general? This is not a flame attempt. I just want to know your thoughts. Is any war justified?

Yeah. When defending those that are attacked by douchebags and can not defend themselves. Like France.
 
2006-06-21 10:40:41 PM
weezbo: Well, not helpful if your intention is to use it as an ad hoc justification for the war

I wouldn't do that. I'm just saying that if WMDs were found and they were unusable, that has no bearing on whether they may be evidence for Bush's asserions.

/I know that the article says that these are not the ones we were looking for. This is all academic.
 
2006-06-21 10:42:08 PM
No_47: ike France.

France had a HUGE army. They just didn't know what the fark they were doing.
 
Displayed 50 of 1082 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report