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.

(CNN)   Those chemical weapons which Iraq had, then were moved to Syria, then Syria didn't have, now Syria does have, now are in Iraq. Confused? You won't be after this episode of the UN Security Council   (amanpour.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 229
    More: Followup, Prime Minister of Iraq, anti-tank weapons, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri, Salim Idriss, Free Syrian Army, American Friends, Moussawi, Heads of state of Syria  
•       •       •

1615 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Sep 2013 at 12:14 PM (49 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



229 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-14 12:19:25 PM
I guess we'll have to invade them again to find out.

/DRTFA
 
2013-09-14 12:26:27 PM
So Syria has their own Chalabi?
 
2013-09-14 12:26:41 PM
I have it on good authority that those particular WMDs were beamed aboard an Imperial Cruiser by the Romulans.
 
2013-09-14 12:30:23 PM

MFAWG: I have it on good authority that those particular WMDs were beamed aboard an Imperial Cruiser by the Romulans.


And apparently Israeli intelligence is in on it.
(I think we should google bomb your idea to see if we can make it on Alex Jones)
 
2013-09-14 12:32:47 PM

MFAWG: I have it on good authority that those particular WMDs were beamed aboard an Imperial Cruiser by the Romulans.


i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-09-14 12:33:00 PM
Saddam's chemical weapons would have degraded too far to be useful after 20 years. These are newly manufactured weapons. Anybody with 1/2 brain knows that. Is the human race really this stupid?

I wouldn't surprised if 90% of the old cold war ICBMs would fail to launch. Getting a rocket that size off the ground is not a child's toy. Look how much trouble NASA has even today. Can you imagine the failure rate of rockets that have been sitting in a hole for 40 years?

I'm not a rocket expert, but thinking 20-40 year old weapons still perfectly and safely functional after that amount of time just doesn't seem likely.

Syria, Iran, and Russia more than likely built these recently.

Yes, I know, I'm talking out of my ass. Be gential and use lube...
 
2013-09-14 12:33:34 PM
Anybody who thinks this ends in anything other than a salvo of cruise missiles isn't really paying attention.
 
2013-09-14 12:34:06 PM
The weapons are wherever we need them to be that will provide the most money in oil rights and no bid contracts to rebuild after we bomb the crap out of them.
 
2013-09-14 12:37:49 PM
I never understood this argument, that Saddam gave away his WMDs.  Why?  Why would he do that?  What's the damn point?  You are being invaded by a superior force.  You know you are going to need every resource at your disposal just to survive.  If it looks like your defeat is inevitable, if the opposition makes it across the Red Line around Baghdad, you might is well use your WMDs and make them pay as great a price as possible for attacking you.  That why you keep your WMDs.

But if you send them to another country, what do you get?  Oh, after the opposing army overruns your country, after you are deposed, and hiding in a hole somewhere, after your children are killed, and maybe you are killed, someone will look up and say, "Golly, I guess he was telling the truth, that he really did not have WMDs, Hyuck! Well, don't I feel abashed? " The whole idea makes no sense.  None.
 
2013-09-14 12:42:30 PM

RyogaM: I never understood this argument, that Saddam gave away his WMDs.  Why?  Why would he do that?  What's the damn point?  You are being invaded by a superior force.  You know you are going to need every resource at your disposal just to survive.  If it looks like your defeat is inevitable, if the opposition makes it across the Red Line around Baghdad, you might is well use your WMDs and make them pay as great a price as possible for attacking you.  That why you keep your WMDs.

But if you send them to another country, what do you get?  Oh, after the opposing army overruns your country, after you are deposed, and hiding in a hole somewhere, after your children are killed, and maybe you are killed, someone will look up and say, "Golly, I guess he was telling the truth, that he really did not have WMDs, Hyuck! Well, don't I feel abashed? " The whole idea makes no sense.  None.


No you see Saddam was able to smuggle his WMDs into Syria but hid himself in a spider hole rather than fleeing the country.
 
2013-09-14 12:49:13 PM
No, subby, I don't remember those chemical weapons because they were figments of the right-wing fever swamp's paranoid imagination.
 
2013-09-14 12:51:07 PM

RyogaM: I never understood this argument, that Saddam gave away his WMDs.  Why?  Why would he do that?  What's the damn point?


To make it appear to the world that he never had them. What some people like to forget is that UN weapons inspectors had documented large amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq, so there's no disputing that he had them.
 
2013-09-14 12:55:46 PM

freak7: RyogaM: I never understood this argument, that Saddam gave away his WMDs.  Why?  Why would he do that?  What's the damn point?

To make it appear to the world that he never had them. What some people like to forget is that UN weapons inspectors had documented large amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq, so there's no disputing that he had them.


Also yellow cake, aluminum tubes, and furthermore comma
 
2013-09-14 12:57:19 PM

freak7: RyogaM: I never understood this argument, that Saddam gave away his WMDs.  Why?  Why would he do that?  What's the damn point?

To make it appear to the world that he never had them. What some people like to forget is that UN weapons inspectors had documented large amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq, so there's no disputing that he had them.


Yes at one time he did back in the 80s against Iran. However stockpiles only have a shelf life of a few months at most
 
2013-09-14 12:58:36 PM

freak7: RyogaM: I never understood this argument, that Saddam gave away his WMDs.  Why?  Why would he do that?  What's the damn point?

To make it appear to the world that he never had them. What some people like to forget is that UN weapons inspectors had documented large amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq, so there's no disputing that he had them.


The entire Hans Blix thing was to see what he did with them: destroy them like he was supposed to, or hide them or send them elsewhere.

He probably had destroyed them, but he wanted his neighbors to think he still had them. Plausible indisputability.
 
2013-09-14 01:03:21 PM

RyogaM: I never understood this argument, that Saddam gave away his WMDs.  Why?  Why would he do that?  What's the damn point?  You are being invaded by a superior force.  You know you are going to need every resource at your disposal just to survive.  If it looks like your defeat is inevitable, if the opposition makes it across the Red Line around Baghdad, you might is well use your WMDs and make them pay as great a price as possible for attacking you.  That why you keep your WMDs.

But if you send them to another country, what do you get?  Oh, after the opposing army overruns your country, after you are deposed, and hiding in a hole somewhere, after your children are killed, and maybe you are killed, someone will look up and say, "Golly, I guess he was telling the truth, that he really did not have WMDs, Hyuck! Well, don't I feel abashed? " The whole idea makes no sense.  None.


Because some people read Tom Clancy novels and think they're biographical.
 
2013-09-14 01:03:24 PM

freak7: To make it appear to the world that he never had them. What some people like to forget is that UN weapons inspectors had documented large amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq, so there's no disputing that he had them.


Don't. Stop. Belieeeeeeevin'....
 
2013-09-14 01:03:30 PM
Sorry, Fark, I'm confused about what you're saying here. Vladimir Putin is a Democrat and he's awesome and makes a way better president than Bush? I'm confused.
 
2013-09-14 01:07:13 PM
 
2013-09-14 01:07:24 PM
 agitprop.typepad.com
 
2013-09-14 01:08:10 PM
Sounds like something Europe ought to take care of.
 
2013-09-14 01:12:09 PM

freak7: RyogaM: I never understood this argument, that Saddam gave away his WMDs.  Why?  Why would he do that?  What's the damn point?

To make it appear to the world that he never had them. What some people like to forget is that UN weapons inspectors had documented large amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq, so there's no disputing that he had them.


You did not actually read my whole post, did you, like where I mocked the very idea that making the would think you did not have WMDs is a good idea when it only occurs after your country is invaded, your army destroyed, your children are killed, you are deposed and killed?
 
2013-09-14 01:20:53 PM

Granny_Panties: Yes, I know, I'm talking out of my ass. Be gential and use lube...


Well at least you admitted it.

I never made it further than basic college chemistry but chemicals degrade at different rates based upon composition and exposure to other chemicals and energy. I'd only take an expert biochemist's opinion on how long chemical weapons can last before they effectively go inert.
 
2013-09-14 01:21:55 PM
I'm a little shocked the Talking Points have not yet been changed to: "Saddam's WMDs have been moved from Syria to Iran where they are being used to guard Iran's nuclear weapons."
 
2013-09-14 01:22:56 PM

Churchy LaFemme: freak7: To make it appear to the world that he never had them. What some people like to forget is that UN weapons inspectors had documented large amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq, so there's no disputing that he had them.

Don't. Stop. Belieeeeeeevin'....

Churchy LaFemme: freak7: To make it appear to the world that he never had them. What some people like to forget is that UN weapons inspectors had documented large amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq, so there's no disputing that he had them.

Don't. Stop. Belieeeeeeevin'....



It's a true enough statement, it's just meaningless.

The fact that Saddam used chemical weapons against Iraq is well known.
The fact that chemical weapons aren't very stable or long lived is also well known.
That the chemical weapons tactics that worked somewhat on Iranian human wave conscripts would be ineffective against the speed and flexibility of the well equipped US military is unproven but I believe it is true and that Saddam would have known better than to invest in something both useless and dangerous to his regime during the international sanction period between the gulf wars.

Chemical weapons are clumsy, ineffectual weapons under most conditions, this is why they are not used very often and then always against civilians or very poorly trained, equipped and led troops.
 
2013-09-14 01:27:22 PM

Fart_Machine: Yes at one time he did back in the 80s against Iran. However stockpiles only have a shelf life of a few months at most


Interesting since he used them in 1991.
 
2013-09-14 01:31:57 PM

CodeMonkey4Life: Churchy LaFemme: freak7: To make it appear to the world that he never had them. What some people like to forget is that UN weapons inspectors had documented large amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq, so there's no disputing that he had them.

Don't. Stop. Belieeeeeeevin'....Churchy LaFemme: freak7: To make it appear to the world that he never had them. What some people like to forget is that UN weapons inspectors had documented large amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq, so there's no disputing that he had them.

Don't. Stop. Belieeeeeeevin'....


It's a true enough statement, it's just meaningless.

The fact that Saddam used chemical weapons against Iraq is well known.
The fact that chemical weapons aren't very stable or long lived is also well known.
That the chemical weapons tactics that worked somewhat on Iranian human wave conscripts would be ineffective against the speed and flexibility of the well equipped US military is unproven but I believe it is true and that Saddam would have known better than to invest in something both useless and dangerous to his regime during the international sanction period between the gulf wars.

Chemical weapons are clumsy, ineffectual weapons under most conditions, this is why they are not used very often and then always against civilians or very poorly trained, equipped and led troops.


You say that it is "well known" that the Iraqis used chemical weapons against Iran, and it probably is well known. It might even be true. But I was around during the early 80s and paid close attention at the time to current events. I distinctly recall representatives of the Reagan administration informing the nation as a matter of certitude that Iran used chemical weapons against Iraq and that Iranian insistence to the contrary was mere propaganda. You'll pardon me if I remain somewhat skeptical about the whole subject.
 
2013-09-14 01:37:45 PM
https://www.google.com/search?q=Iran+used+chemical+weapons+against+Ira q&rlz=1C1LENN_enUS535US535&oq=Iran+used+chemical+weapons+against+Iraq& aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8">https://www.google.com/se arch?q=Iran+used+chemical+weapons+against+Ira q&rlz=1C1LENN_enUS535US535&oq=Iran+used+chemical+weapons+against+Iraq& aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
 
2013-09-14 01:44:22 PM

freak7: Fart_Machine: Yes at one time he did back in the 80s against Iran. However stockpiles only have a shelf life of a few months at most

Interesting since he used them in 1991.


?
 
2013-09-14 01:46:02 PM

freak7: Fart_Machine: Yes at one time he did back in the 80s against Iran. However stockpiles only have a shelf life of a few months at most

Interesting since he used them in 1991.


which is but 2 years removed from the 80's and 22 years from the present.
 
2013-09-14 01:46:36 PM
He's got tons of this stuff too:

lucyactually.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-09-14 01:48:00 PM

Hobodeluxe: which is but 2 years removed from the 80's and 22 years from the present.


I'm not saying that Iraq has chemical weapons today, what's your point?
 
2013-09-14 01:48:24 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: He's got tons of this stuff too:


Half white and half black just like Obama. The conspiracy goes way deeper than you could ever imagine.
 
2013-09-14 01:50:44 PM
CNN is still banging the old war drum I see.Why else would they give credence to a Syrian opposition figure who will say anything to get the US into the Syrian war?
 
2013-09-14 01:52:08 PM

vygramul: freak7: Fart_Machine: Yes at one time he did back in the 80s against Iran. However stockpiles only have a shelf life of a few months at most

Interesting since he used them in 1991.

?


Isn't it great when people just make shiat up to try to win an argument.
 
2013-09-14 01:52:14 PM
The evidence that Saddam's attempted to use Chemical Weapons against U.S. troops in 1991 is circumstantial.  There is no definitive proof that it occurred, and, even if it did occur, was completely and 100% ineffective, so much so that, for years, the U.S. denied Sadam ever used chemical weapons in the Kuwait war.

This leads to two different conclusions: one, the complete ineffectiveness of chemical weapons in the Kuwait war may have convinced Sadam that further development past that date in the face of international sanctions was counterproductive, and, that there would have been nothing to constrain Sadam from ordering the use of WMDs in the Iraq war in the last war, if he had them, as some sort of last ditch effort to effect the outcome, even if they were previously ineffective

What these facts do not support is the conclusion that Sadam would have voluntarily given his WMDs away at the time of an invasion, as Bush apologists want to claim, again and again.


Here's a PDF about it.  http://tinyurl.com/odeugk3
 
2013-09-14 01:52:37 PM
I think we're all missing the big story here. CNN put this sentence, all by its lonesome, as the third paragraph:

CNN could not independently verify Idriss' claim.

CNN tried to verify a claim! This is huge.
 
2013-09-14 01:54:44 PM

freak7: Hobodeluxe: which is but 2 years removed from the 80's and 22 years from the present.

I'm not saying that Iraq has chemical weapons today, what's your point?


your post that in 1991 he used them somehow those made in the 80's couldn't have been used. but you have to realize that he probably continued to make them up until the first gulf war. after that he was under much more international scrutiny.
 
2013-09-14 01:57:45 PM

ongbok: vygramul: freak7: Fart_Machine: Yes at one time he did back in the 80s against Iran. However stockpiles only have a shelf life of a few months at most

Interesting since he used them in 1991.

?

Isn't it great when people just make shiat up to try to win an argument.


I'm actually not sure what we're supposed to conclude, that CW lasts longer than three months? Yoghurt has a shelf life that isn't measured in years. Yet I had yoghurt today AND in 1991.
 
2013-09-14 02:08:45 PM
side issue for those interested

chemical wpns (and death in general)
lead to voiding of bowels and bladder

the victims pictured seemed very clean
never clear if they had already been processed (stripped, washed, fresh clothes)
or had just been collected (in which case there could be casualties from 2nd had exposure)
 
2013-09-14 02:11:18 PM

ongbok: Isn't it great when people just make shiat up to try to win an argument.


Wait, you think I made that up? Hahaha, okay then.
 
2013-09-14 02:19:15 PM

Fart_Machine: freak7: RyogaM: I never understood this argument, that Saddam gave away his WMDs.  Why?  Why would he do that?  What's the damn point?

To make it appear to the world that he never had them. What some people like to forget is that UN weapons inspectors had documented large amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq, so there's no disputing that he had them.

Yes at one time he did back in the 80s against Iran. However stockpiles only have a shelf life of a few months at most


Have you heard of nerve gas? Some is 30 - 40 yrs old and will kill you quick.
 
2013-09-14 02:19:24 PM

freak7: ongbok: Isn't it great when people just make shiat up to try to win an argument.

Wait, you think I made that up? Hahaha, okay then.


Of course you didn't make it up. You were just repeating the discredited falsehood.
 
2013-09-14 02:20:02 PM
At this point the far right sacks of medical waste just want to try and resuscitate the justifications for war in Iraq because they're inhuman scum who want to do it again and again. The vaunted WMDs will be "found" to have been moved to France if the Republicans get a hair up their ass about the frogs again.
 
2013-09-14 02:21:22 PM

freak7: ongbok: Isn't it great when people just make shiat up to try to win an argument.

Wait, you think I made that up? Hahaha, okay then.


Then post a citation, should be easy since something like that would be huge news.
 
2013-09-14 02:22:02 PM
Here's an idea.

Build a giant wall around the entire Middle East, from Turkey to Yemen, and from Egypt to Iran.
 
2013-09-14 02:24:58 PM

hawcian: I think we're all missing the big story here. CNN put this sentence, all by its lonesome, as the third paragraph:

CNN could not independently verify Idriss' claim.

CNN tried to verify a claim! This is huge.


It involves asking around on Twitter for their viewers' thoughts.
 
2013-09-14 02:30:10 PM

ongbok: Then post a citation, should be easy since something like that would be huge news.


Or maybe you could search Google for "1991 Iraq chemical weapons attack". I'm not doing your homework for you.
 
2013-09-14 02:31:31 PM

freak7: ongbok: Then post a citation, should be easy since something like that would be huge news.

Or maybe you could search Google for "1991 Iraq chemical weapons attack". I'm not doing your homework for you.


Study it out.
 
2013-09-14 02:34:42 PM

freak7: ongbok: Then post a citation, should be easy since something like that would be huge news.

Or maybe you could search Google for "1991 Iraq chemical weapons attack". I'm not doing your homework for you.


I guess you missed RyogaM's post above explaining the claim that Iraq used chemical weapons in the 1991 Gulf War is bullshiat.
 
2013-09-14 02:34:56 PM
Unreal how ignorant some people choose to be about things that don't support their views. It's documented by farking UN weapons inspectors up to 1998 that Iraq had chemical weapons.
 
2013-09-14 02:35:20 PM

Mrbogey: Granny_Panties: Yes, I know, I'm talking out of my ass. Be gential and use lube...

Well at least you admitted it.

I never made it further than basic college chemistry but chemicals degrade at different rates based upon composition and exposure to other chemicals and energy. I'd only take an expert biochemist's opinion on how long chemical weapons can last before they effectively go inert.


If they are binary chemical weapons, degradation is not an issue.
/not a biochemist
 
2013-09-14 02:38:36 PM
Some Iraqi sarin had a shelf life of only a few weeks, due to it's shiatty quality. The best of the "good shiat" could last a few years. Considering that Bush declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq over a decade ago, there is pretty much no way the sarin used in Syria was "vintage 2002" sarin made in Iraq before we destroyed Saddam's regime.

Most importantly, Syria has admitted to manufacturing and stockpiling chemical weapons, and we've identified at least five sites in Syria where chemical weapons are made. So the thought that they would use decade-old chemical weapons from somewhere else makes no sense.
 
2013-09-14 02:43:09 PM

max_pooper: freak7: ongbok: Then post a citation, should be easy since something like that would be huge news.

Or maybe you could search Google for "1991 Iraq chemical weapons attack". I'm not doing your homework for you.

I guess you missed RyogaM's post above explaining the claim that Iraq used chemical weapons in the 1991 Gulf War is bullshiat.


Not Bullshiat.  Circumstantial.  And not worthy of discussion, because, A) even if they were used, they were completely ineffective, and B) has absolutely nothing to do with our attack in 2003, which was predicated on the belief that Sadam had WMD in 2003, not 1991, not 1998, not 2001.  But 2003.

And, since we had inspectors on the ground in 2003, and we told those inspectors to shove off before they completed their inspection so we could get our war on, what 7 is trying to due is derail the discussion and act as an apologist for the Bush attack in 2003 in Iraq by pretending that there it was reasonable in 2003 to attack Iraq over WMDs, when it clearly was not.  And everyone is falling for it, sadly.
 
2013-09-14 02:49:34 PM

RyogaM: max_pooper: freak7: ongbok: Then post a citation, should be easy since something like that would be huge news.

Or maybe you could search Google for "1991 Iraq chemical weapons attack". I'm not doing your homework for you.

I guess you missed RyogaM's post above explaining the claim that Iraq used chemical weapons in the 1991 Gulf War is bullshiat.

Not Bullshiat.  Circumstantial.  And not worthy of discussion, because, A) even if they were used, they were completely ineffective, and B) has absolutely nothing to do with our attack in 2003, which was predicated on the belief that Sadam had WMD in 2003, not 1991, not 1998, not 2001.  But 2003.

And, since we had inspectors on the ground in 2003, and we told those inspectors to shove off before they completed their inspection so we could get our war on, what 7 is trying to due is derail the discussion and act as an apologist for the Bush attack in 2003 in Iraq by pretending that there it was reasonable in 2003 to attack Iraq over WMDs, when it clearly was not.  And everyone is falling for it, sadly.


I'm certainly not. I recall the Bush administration claiming the Sadam had built new chemical weapons factories. Not only was the Bush administration certain of their existence, they knew exactly where they were. A 10 year occupation yielded zero evidence of any such factories.

Republicans: have they ever been right about anything?
 
2013-09-14 02:50:03 PM

freak7: Unreal how ignorant some people choose to be about things that don't support their views. It's documented by farking UN weapons inspectors up to 1998 that Iraq had chemical weapons.


And that was relevant in 2003 how?
 
2013-09-14 02:52:18 PM
I'm reading this while being deployed in the Middle East.

So...I'm not really getting a kick.
 
2013-09-14 02:53:31 PM

freak7: Unreal how ignorant some people choose to be about things that don't support their views. It's documented by farking UN weapons inspectors up to 1998 that Iraq had chemical weapons.



Bush has admitted that Iraq was an "intelligence failure" and the biggest disappointment of his Presidency. The Iraqi intel source for the WMD claims has admitted that he lied. A 2008 Senate Intel Committee concluded that the Bush Administration "misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq." That case is closed.

So what is truly "unreal" is how in the living fark anyone can still defend that f*cking war when everyone involved has admitted it was all bullshiat.
 
2013-09-14 02:53:33 PM

spcMike: I'm reading this while being deployed in the Middle East.

So...I'm not really getting a kick.


Keep your head down
 
2013-09-14 02:53:33 PM
Man I was so hoping this was going to be a whole thread about how great Soap was. Sad face.
 
2013-09-14 02:54:49 PM
You put your right hand in,
You put your right hand out,
You put your right hand in,
And you shake it all about,

You do the hokey pokey
and you turn yourself around
That what it's all about.

You put your left hand in,
You put your left hand out,
You put your left hand in,
And you shake it all about,

You do the hokey pokey
and you turn yourself around
That what it's all about.

additional lines:

3) right foot
4) left foot
5) head
6) butt
7) whole self
 
2013-09-14 02:55:40 PM

freak7: Unreal how ignorant some people choose to be about things that don't support their views. It's documented by farking UN weapons inspectors up to 1998 that Iraq had chemical weapons.


I find it very interesting that you keep saying that something is "documented", yet you never do provide proof of the documentation...and when somebody calls you out on it, you just fall back to saying something along the lines of "I'm not doing your homework for you."  Never mind that YOU are the one making the claim, therefore it is YOUR job to provide the proof...but it is pretty obvious at this point that you are just a troll shill, so I shouldn't expect you to do anything sensible...
 
2013-09-14 02:55:52 PM

Mrtraveler01: And that was relevant in 2003 how?


When the fark did I mention 2003?
 
2013-09-14 02:57:58 PM

freak7: Mrtraveler01: And that was relevant in 2003 how?

When the fark did I mention 2003?


What does something in 1998 have any relvance to anything in 2003 when we invaded Iraq because we thought they still had chemical weapons?
 
2013-09-14 02:58:50 PM

shower_in_my_socks: So what is truly "unreal" is how in the living fark anyone can still defend that f*cking war when everyone involved has admitted it was all bullshiat.


Bush supporters and facts do not mix....
 
2013-09-14 02:59:42 PM

Pharque-it: shower_in_my_socks: So what is truly "unreal" is how in the living fark anyone can still defend that f*cking war when everyone involved has admitted it was all bullshiat.

Bush supporters and facts do not mix....


The revisionism by them though reeks of desperation.
 
2013-09-14 03:01:55 PM

Mrtraveler01: Pharque-it: shower_in_my_socks: So what is truly "unreal" is how in the living fark anyone can still defend that f*cking war when everyone involved has admitted it was all bullshiat.

Bush supporters and facts do not mix....


The revisionism by them though reeks of desperation.


Not to mention the chicken j!zz.
 
2013-09-14 03:04:14 PM

Kittypie070: Mrtraveler01: Pharque-it: shower_in_my_socks: So what is truly "unreal" is how in the living fark anyone can still defend that f*cking war when everyone involved has admitted it was all bullshiat.

Bush supporters and facts do not mix....

The revisionism by them though reeks of desperation.

Not to mention the chicken j!zz.


There are a lot of GOP apologists in here with schmaltz stains on their trousers.
 
2013-09-14 03:06:27 PM

Mrtraveler01: What does something in 1998 have any relvance to anything in 2003 when we invaded Iraq because we thought they still had chemical weapons?


When did I say a word about the invasion of Iraq? Geez dude, pay attention and stop projecting your insecurities.
 
2013-09-14 03:13:16 PM

studs up: If they are binary chemical weapons, degradation is not an issue.
/not a biochemist


It still can be but of a different sort. From what I've heard about sarin, it breaks down after being mixed so it needs to be mixed in the field. But some binary compounds are made from precursors that do degrade. I've used chemicals that had to be combined to form an expanding foam but sometimes it fails because one of the compounds is out of date.
 
2013-09-14 03:15:24 PM

freak7: Mrtraveler01: And that was relevant in 2003 how?

When the fark did I mention 2003?


Let me remind you how you entered this thread:

freak7: RyogaM: I never understood this argument, that Saddam gave away his WMDs.  Why?  Why would he do that?  What's the damn point?

To make it appear to the world that he never had them. What some people like to forget is that UN weapons inspectors had documented large amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq, so there's no disputing that he had them.


The bullshiat supposition you entered this thread defending, is the supposition made by Bush apologists that Sadam did not have WMDs in 2003, the existence of which the Bush administration based their invasion on, because he gave them away.  You defended this bullshiat by: restating the bullshiat and offering nothing else.  Brilliant trolling, btw.  So, your very Boobies is you claiming that Sadam had WMDs in 2003, and gave them away so the world would think he never had them, even though the world knew he had them until at least the early 1990s.  Stop trolling.
 
2013-09-14 03:15:25 PM

Fart_Machine: Yes at one time he did back in the 80s against Iran. However stockpiles only have a shelf life of a few months at most


shelf life is more like "best by" than "expires."  Fishermen in the North Sea get skin burns every once in a while from pulling up a shell of mustard gas from the 40s.  Sitting in storage it may very well degrade but there is a pretty big difference between inert and 50% less deadly.
 
2013-09-14 03:20:48 PM
looks like 7 got caught with a shell of........bk bk bk bk, bk-aack!!
 
2013-09-14 03:22:33 PM

ko_kyi: Fart_Machine: Yes at one time he did back in the 80s against Iran. However stockpiles only have a shelf life of a few months at most

shelf life is more like "best by" than "expires."  Fishermen in the North Sea get skin burns every once in a while from pulling up a shell of mustard gas from the 40s.  Sitting in storage it may very well degrade but there is a pretty big difference between inert and 50% less deadly.


But there is a big difference being in an environment where the temperature stays in refrigerator range versus a region where being in the low triple digits is considered cool out.
 
2013-09-14 03:23:28 PM

ko_kyi: shelf life is more like "best by" than "expires."  Fishermen in the North Sea get skin burns every once in a while from pulling up a shell of mustard gas from the 40s.  Sitting in storage it may very well degrade but there is a pretty big difference between inert and 50% less deadly.


We weren't sold the Iraq war based on "we need to get rid of Saddam's old weapons from the 80s and 90s, half of which he manufactured while the US was supporting him against Iran." We were sold the Iraq war based on his CONTINUED manufacturing of WMD in the 2000s, and not just chemical weapons, but an alleged pursuit of yellowcake. Our leaders stood in front of the whole world with satellite imagery of alleged WMD manufacturing sites. And then we invaded and all we found was some of the old shiat that hadn't been destroyed yet.
 
2013-09-14 03:27:17 PM

shower_in_my_socks: ko_kyi: shelf life is more like "best by" than "expires."  Fishermen in the North Sea get skin burns every once in a while from pulling up a shell of mustard gas from the 40s.  Sitting in storage it may very well degrade but there is a pretty big difference between inert and 50% less deadly.

We weren't sold the Iraq war based on "we need to get rid of Saddam's old weapons from the 80s and 90s, half of which he manufactured while the US was supporting him against Iran." We were sold the Iraq war based on his CONTINUED manufacturing of WMD in the 2000s, and not just chemical weapons, but an alleged pursuit of yellowcake. Our leaders stood in front of the whole world with satellite imagery of alleged WMD manufacturing sites. And then we invaded and all we found was some of the old shiat that hadn't been destroyed yet.


Well said. This should put this to rest but I have a feeling the Bush apologists will just start marching down another path of revisionism to counteract the feeling of shame they have for being so easily fooled.
 
2013-09-14 03:28:14 PM

RyogaM: Let me remind you how you entered this thread:


I answered a question, I made no mention or defense of the most recent invasion of Iraq. The undeniable facts are that up until 1998, Iraq had chemical weapons stockpiles. After they kicked the weapons inspectors out for the final time, there was no real way of knowing what was going on.
 
2013-09-14 03:32:42 PM

freak7: RyogaM: Let me remind you how you entered this thread:

I answered a question, I made no mention or defense of the most recent invasion of Iraq. The undeniable facts are that up until 1998, Iraq had chemical weapons stockpiles. After they kicked the weapons inspectors out for the final time, there was no real way of knowing what was going on.


Yes you just came in to defend the revisionists claiming the Bush administrations justifications for the war in Iraq were sound but make no claim to those historical revisions at all.

You're as ignorant as you are transparent.
 
2013-09-14 03:33:12 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: He's got tons of this stuff too:

[lucyactually.files.wordpress.com image 800x663]


i.imgur.com

Don't drop that shiat...pray to God you don't drop that shiat.
 
2013-09-14 03:34:06 PM
I didn't realize that the Assad Regime had enough of a working relationship with Iraq to move WMDs to their country for safekeeping on the downlow.
 
2013-09-14 03:34:32 PM
This thread is ma ma ma ma ma ma maadness...

*guitar riff*
 
2013-09-14 03:35:48 PM

freak7: RyogaM: Let me remind you how you entered this thread:

I answered a question, I made no mention or defense of the most recent invasion of Iraq. The undeniable facts are that up until 1998, Iraq had chemical weapons stockpiles. After they kicked the weapons inspectors out for the final time, there was no real way of knowing what was going on.


The inspectors were kicked out in 2003, by us, so we could get our war on.  You are again parroting Bullshiat Bush apologist talking points.  And you last answer was a parroting of Bullshiat Bush apologist talking points.  You are trolling.  Sadly, you are playing stupid so well, that it is almost impossible to not try to correct you.  Good for you, you've convinced everyone you are a moron.
 
2013-09-14 03:41:28 PM

RyogaM: The inspectors were kicked out in 2003


Jesus Christ, learn some basic facts before you farking post. There was a 4 year dark period from 1998 - 2002 when weapons inspectors were not in Iraq.
 
2013-09-14 03:45:00 PM

freak7: RyogaM: The inspectors were kicked out in 2003

Jesus Christ, learn some basic facts before you farking post. There was a 4 year dark period from 1998 - 2002 when weapons inspectors were not in Iraq.


You stated "for the last time".

You're the one who does not know what they are talking about.
 
2013-09-14 03:49:50 PM

freak7: RyogaM: The inspectors were kicked out in 2003

Jesus Christ, learn some basic facts before you farking post. There was a 4 year dark period from 1998 - 2002 when weapons inspectors were not in Iraq.


My god, man, do you not remember what you just wrote, let me refresh your memory:

After they kicked the weapons inspectors out for the final time, there was no real way of knowing what was going on.

So, first, they did not "kick the inspectors out for the final time" in 1998.  Under any plain understanding of English, if you "kick someone out for the final time", then you never let them back in, which is clearly wrong, because the inspectors were again in the country in 2003.  Second, "There was no real way of knowing what was going on." is also what you just wrote.  Which, again, is bullshiat, because we had a way of knowing exactly what was going on in the country in 2003, we had inspectors on the ground, in 2003, until Bush told them to get out so we could get our war on.  My god, man, you've hit the mother-load of trolling, write the dumbest shiat possible so people are compelled to correct you, line by line.  Kudos.
 
2013-09-14 03:51:07 PM

RyogaM: freak7: RyogaM: The inspectors were kicked out in 2003

Jesus Christ, learn some basic facts before you farking post. There was a 4 year dark period from 1998 - 2002 when weapons inspectors were not in Iraq.

My god, man, do you not remember what you just wrote, let me refresh your memory:

After they kicked the weapons inspectors out for the final time, there was no real way of knowing what was going on.

So, first, they did not "kick the inspectors out for the final time" in 1998.  Under any plain understanding of English, if you "kick someone out for the final time", then you never let them back in, which is clearly wrong, because the inspectors were again in the country in 2003.  Second, "There was no real way of knowing what was going on." is also what you just wrote.  Which, again, is bullshiat, because we had a way of knowing exactly what was going on in the country in 2003, we had inspectors on the ground, in 2003, until Bush told them to get out so we could get our war on.  My god, man, you've hit the mother-load of trolling, write the dumbest shiat possible so people are compelled to correct you, line by line.  Kudos.


We
 
2013-09-14 03:54:51 PM

max_pooper: RyogaM: freak7: RyogaM: The inspectors were kicked out in 2003

Jesus Christ, learn some basic facts before you farking post. There was a 4 year dark period from 1998 - 2002 when weapons inspectors were not in Iraq.

My god, man, do you not remember what you just wrote, let me refresh your memory:

After they kicked the weapons inspectors out for the final time, there was no real way of knowing what was going on.

So, first, they did not "kick the inspectors out for the final time" in 1998.  Under any plain understanding of English, if you "kick someone out for the final time", then you never let them back in, which is clearly wrong, because the inspectors were again in the country in 2003.  Second, "There was no real way of knowing what was going on." is also what you just wrote.  Which, again, is bullshiat, because we had a way of knowing exactly what was going on in the country in 2003, we had inspectors on the ground, in 2003, until Bush told them to get out so we could get our war on.  My god, man, you've hit the mother-load of trolling, write the dumbest shiat possible so people are compelled to correct you, line by line.  Kudos.

We


That didn't come out right...

We also had ten years of occupation to find evidence of the chemical weapons Bush assured us were there. We found nothing the Bush administration claimed they had. No enrichment facilities, no chemical weapons labs and no new chemical weapons.

You bought a line of bullshiat and and still defending it a decade later after the originated of the bullshiat has admitted it was in fact bullshiat.
 
2013-09-14 03:55:53 PM
If that's the case, bomb the shiat out of both of them and let the Kurds sort through the rubble.
 
2013-09-14 03:56:53 PM
I'm out.  I'm half-way thru the original Wicker-man and am missing too much prime boobage with this retarded nonsense.
 
2013-09-14 03:59:19 PM

RyogaM: I'm out.  I'm half-way thru the original Wicker-man and am missing too much prime boobage with this retarded nonsense.


Well come back when the movie is over. They're will a good hour worth hilariously ignorant posts by freak7 to catch up on.
 
2013-09-14 03:59:56 PM
max_pooper:
We also had ten years of occupation to find evidence of the chemical weapons Bush assured us were there. We found nothing the Bush administration claimed they had. No enrichment facilities, no chemical weapons labs and no new chemical weapons.

You bought a line of bullshiat and and still defending it a decade later after the originated of the bullshiat has admitted it was in fact bullshiat.


Do not forget the mobile chemical factories and the "hollow mountains" of evil.... Right out of Popular Science...
 
2013-09-14 04:03:02 PM

max_pooper: RyogaM: I'm out.  I'm half-way thru the original Wicker-man and am missing too much prime boobage with this retarded nonsense.

Well come back when the movie is over. They're will a good hour worth hilariously ignorant posts by freak7 to catch up on.


I'm going right into the Nic Cage Wicker man after I'm done with this one.  I hope I don't get derp/troll overload when I get back.
 
2013-09-14 04:05:40 PM
I'm going out for ice cream.
 
2013-09-14 04:11:47 PM

Granny_Panties: Saddam's chemical weapons would have degraded too far to be useful after 20 years. These are newly manufactured weapons. Anybody with 1/2 brain knows that. Is the human race really this stupid?

I wouldn't surprised if 90% of the old cold war ICBMs would fail to launch. Getting a rocket that size off the ground is not a child's toy. Look how much trouble NASA has even today. Can you imagine the failure rate of rockets that have been sitting in a hole for 40 years?

I'm not a rocket expert, but thinking 20-40 year old weapons still perfectly and safely functional after that amount of time just doesn't seem likely.

Syria, Iran, and Russia more than likely built these recently.

Yes, I know, I'm talking out of my ass. Be gential and use lube...


No you're not. Sarin gas has a very limited shelf life.

But yeah. People are that stupid.
 
2013-09-14 04:17:31 PM

spawn73: Sarin gas has a very limited shelf life.


Sure it is, if you mix it and let it sit on the shelf. Any sophisticated chemical weapons program is going to keep the precursor materials separated and then mix them when needed.
 
2013-09-14 04:20:25 PM

freak7: spawn73: Sarin gas has a very limited shelf life.

Sure it is, if you mix it and let it sit on the shelf. Any sophisticated chemical weapons program is going to keep the precursor materials separated and then mix them when needed.


Where is the evidence that Sadam had a "sophisticated chemical weapons program"?
 
2013-09-14 04:20:54 PM

vygramul: freak7: RyogaM: I never understood this argument, that Saddam gave away his WMDs.  Why?  Why would he do that?  What's the damn point?

To make it appear to the world that he never had them. What some people like to forget is that UN weapons inspectors had documented large amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq, so there's no disputing that he had them.

The entire Hans Blix thing was to see what he did with them: destroy them like he was supposed to, or hide them or send them elsewhere.

He probably had destroyed them, but he wanted his neighbors to think he still had them. Plausible indisputability.


He had destroyed them, as he said so when he saw the writing on the wall. Blix had trouble accounting for every single piece because Iraq apparently were shiatty with bookkeeping. It's good to destroy your inventory, but the UN would like to see where exactly in the desert every single piece was etc.

And it's not "probably". I'm out of this thread. not good for me.

farking tards. It's Iraq war 2 all over again. Doomed to repeat history over and over again.
 
2013-09-14 04:24:15 PM
Mix when needed.
Apply directly to the forehead.
 
2013-09-14 04:25:51 PM

spawn73: vygramul: freak7: RyogaM: I never understood this argument, that Saddam gave away his WMDs.  Why?  Why would he do that?  What's the damn point?

To make it appear to the world that he never had them. What some people like to forget is that UN weapons inspectors had documented large amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq, so there's no disputing that he had them.

The entire Hans Blix thing was to see what he did with them: destroy them like he was supposed to, or hide them or send them elsewhere.

He probably had destroyed them, but he wanted his neighbors to think he still had them. Plausible indisputability.

He had destroyed them, as he said so when he saw the writing on the wall. Blix had trouble accounting for every single piece because Iraq apparently were shiatty with bookkeeping. It's good to destroy your inventory, but the UN would like to see where exactly in the desert every single piece was etc.

And it's not "probably". I'm out of this thread. not good for me.

farking tards. It's Iraq war 2 all over again. Doomed to repeat history over and over again.


It's not Iraq 2 all over again. GOP caulk gobblers are trying desperately to paint this non-land invasion as exactly like Iraq 2.0 as a BSABSVR ploy to downplay Bush's failures.
 
2013-09-14 04:27:23 PM

max_pooper: Where is the evidence that Sadam had a "sophisticated chemical weapons program"?


You mean other than the fact that he used them on his own people on numerous occasions and the reports by UN weapons inspectors?

Enough Iraq talk, this thread is about Syria.
 
2013-09-14 04:28:14 PM

freak7: spawn73: No, what some people like to forget is that we haven't forgotten how lying dumbfark history falsifying assholes you are.

You're going on record as saying that UN weapons inspectors didn't document large chemical weapons in Iraq as recently as 1998? Sorry dude, your ignorance is now recorded for future generations to see.


So you've gone from dancing around Bush apologists to full on historical revisionism and now you've moved on flat out lying about what other people have said.

Your continued display of proud ignorance is intriguing.
 
2013-09-14 04:32:42 PM

Mrbogey: studs up: If they are binary chemical weapons, degradation is not an issue.
/not a biochemist

It still can be but of a different sort. From what I've heard about sarin, it breaks down after being mixed so it needs to be mixed in the field. But some binary compounds are made from precursors that do degrade. I've used chemicals that had to be combined to form an expanding foam but sometimes it fails because one of the compounds is out of date.


Sarin is the least stable of CW stockpiles and one of the shortest lived iirc. Most binaries that I am aware of have preservatives that are very long lasting. Barring exposure to extreme heat (not a sure thing in a desert), they should still be viable. The activators in foam tend to have a short shelf life. Something about the pH level I think. It's been awhile since I knew this stuff so if I'm wrong, please forgive in advance.
 
2013-09-14 04:33:44 PM

max_pooper: So you've gone from dancing around Bush apologists to full on historical revisionism and now you've moved on flat out lying about what other people have said.

Your continued display of proud ignorance is intriguing.


I've never seen anybody more ignorant and incapable of reading comprehension than you. Good job I guess.

I'm done discussing this with people who don't even know the difference between what UN weapons inspectors documented in Iraq up until 1998 and what happened when they returned in late 2002 after being gone for almost 4 years. My head is starting to hurt trying to understand how you can be so goddamn ignorant.
 
2013-09-14 04:36:42 PM
I can sum up this thread in one image:

i480.photobucket.com
 
2013-09-14 04:39:57 PM

freak7: spawn73: No, what some people like to forget is that we haven't forgotten how lying dumbfark history falsifying assholes you are.

You're going on record as saying that UN weapons inspectors didn't document large chemical weapons in Iraq as recently as 1998? Sorry dude, your ignorance is now recorded for future generations to see.


On your record? Why would I care about someone who just out of the thin air invents some claims I supposedly made.

Maybe you're confused about when Iraq war 2 occured? Look it up.
 
2013-09-14 04:42:49 PM

spawn73: Maybe you're confused about when Iraq war 2 occured? Look it up.


Who the fark is talking about the 2nd Iraq war? I'm certainly not, please pay farking attention. I've even gone on record in this thread as saying that I wasn't defending the second invasion of Iraq. farking hell dude, pay attention to what's actually being talked about and stop making stupid assumptions.
 
2013-09-14 04:42:49 PM

freak7: max_pooper: So you've gone from dancing around Bush apologists to full on historical revisionism and now you've moved on flat out lying about what other people have said.

Your continued display of proud ignorance is intriguing.

I've never seen anybody more ignorant and incapable of reading comprehension than you. Good job I guess.

I'm done discussing this with people who don't even know the difference between what UN weapons inspectors documented in Iraq up until 1998 and what happened when they returned in late 2002 after being gone for almost 4 years. My head is starting to hurt trying to understand how you can be so goddamn ignorant.


Oh shut up.

Iraq was invaded based on the lies about what they should have had at the time of the invasion, but didn't.

Go back to talking with 9/11 conspiracy theorists or whatever it is you normally do then.
 
2013-09-14 04:44:40 PM

spawn73: Oh shut up.


No, you.
 
2013-09-14 04:52:09 PM

fatandolder: Fart_Machine: freak7: RyogaM: I never understood this argument, that Saddam gave away his WMDs.  Why?  Why would he do that?  What's the damn point?

To make it appear to the world that he never had them. What some people like to forget is that UN weapons inspectors had documented large amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq, so there's no disputing that he had them.

Yes at one time he did back in the 80s against Iran. However stockpiles only have a shelf life of a few months at most

Have you heard of nerve gas? Some is 30 - 40 yrs old and will kill you quick.


Since we're talking about Sarin it has a shelf life of 2 months under the best conditions. I'm not sure about VX but I'm pretty sure it's not 30-40 years. Maybe you're thinking about mustard gas.
 
2013-09-14 04:55:11 PM
I'm still confused as to the relevance of the fact that the UN found chemical weapons in 1998 has anything to do with what happened a few years later.

So Saddam had cw back in 1998 which means that he had to have it in 2003?
 
2013-09-14 05:00:28 PM
trolledbot.net
 
2013-09-14 05:00:38 PM

Mrtraveler01: I'm still confused as to the relevance of the fact that the UN found chemical weapons in 1998 has anything to do with what happened a few years later.


I'm still confused why you think I'm saying anything about the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
 
2013-09-14 05:04:44 PM
freak7 is a troll account set up a few weeks ago. The only people still defending the Iraq war are either liars or retards. Put him on ignore with the other bored losers.
 
2013-09-14 05:10:04 PM

shower_in_my_socks: The only people still defending the Iraq war


Oh for farks sake.
 
2013-09-14 05:13:49 PM

oryx: CNN is still banging the old war drum I see.Why else would they give credence to a Syrian opposition figure who will say anything to get the US into the Syrian war?


This
 
2013-09-14 05:31:27 PM

freak7: Mrtraveler01: I'm still confused as to the relevance of the fact that the UN found chemical weapons in 1998 has anything to do with what happened a few years later.

I'm still confused why you think I'm saying anything about the 2003 invasion of Iraq.


So what relevance does your fact have anything to do with this thread then?
 
2013-09-14 05:34:29 PM

freak7: max_pooper: So you've gone from dancing around Bush apologists to full on historical revisionism and now you've moved on flat out lying about what other people have said.

Your continued display of proud ignorance is intriguing.

I've never seen anybody more ignorant and incapable of reading comprehension than you. Good job I guess.

I'm done discussing this with people who don't even know the difference between what UN weapons inspectors documented in Iraq up until 1998 and what happened when they returned in late 2002 after being gone for almost 4 years. My head is starting to hurt trying to understand how you can be so goddamn ignorant.


That's a lot of derp for one post.

Did you notice that just about everyone in this thread thinks you're an idiot or a troll because you are making claim without evidence while others are citing facts against your derp?

You: lies, falsehoods, hearsay and misdirection
Everyone else: facts
 
2013-09-14 05:37:16 PM

Mrtraveler01: So what relevance does your fact have anything to do with this thread then?


It's as relevant as talking about the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
 
2013-09-14 05:38:48 PM

max_pooper: That's a lot of derp for one post.

Did you notice that just about everyone in this thread thinks you're an idiot or a troll because you are making claim without evidence while others are citing facts against your derp?

You: lies, falsehoods, hearsay and misdirection
Everyone else: facts


If I was the kind of person to put people on ignore, you'd be the first. Your level of ignorance about recent history is astounding. Made even worse by the fact that you claim to be stating facts. I'm done with you, be gone troll.
 
2013-09-14 05:39:18 PM

olderbudnoweiser: [agitprop.typepad.com image 400x300]


God that video infuriates the ever-living shiat out of me.
 
2013-09-14 05:44:36 PM

freak7: Mrtraveler01: So what relevance does your fact have anything to do with this thread then?

It's as relevant as talking about the 2003 invasion of Iraq.


There are comparisons to be made between the ground war in Syria the GOP is insisting Obama wants to fight with the ground war in Iraq that Bush fought. Others in this thread were making those comparisons when you decided to jump in wih your revisionist history to defend the Bush apologists.

If the Iraq war has nothing to do with the Syria situation why did you bother to chime in with lies and falsehoods?
 
2013-09-14 05:48:16 PM

freak7: max_pooper: That's a lot of derp for one post.

Did you notice that just about everyone in this thread thinks you're an idiot or a troll because you are making claim without evidence while others are citing facts against your derp?

You: lies, falsehoods, hearsay and misdirection
Everyone else: facts

If I was the kind of person to put people on ignore, you'd be the first. Your level of ignorance about recent history is astounding. Made even worse by the fact that you claim to be stating facts. I'm done with you, be gone troll.


Really? Like how you claimed that he last time weapons inspectors were in Iraq was in 1998? Is that a good example of your existive expertise in Middle East contemporary history? If you have a such vast knowledge of history you are doing a great job of hiding it behind blindingly stupid proclamations.
 
2013-09-14 05:48:51 PM

max_pooper: freak7: Mrtraveler01: So what relevance does your fact have anything to do with this thread then?

It's as relevant as talking about the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

There are comparisons to be made between the ground war in Syria the GOP is insisting Obama wants to fight with the ground war in Iraq that Bush fought. Others in this thread were making those comparisons when you decided to jump in wih your revisionist history to defend the Bush apologists.

If the Iraq war has nothing to do with the Syria situation why did you bother to chime in with lies and falsehoods?


Because trolololol
 
2013-09-14 05:49:05 PM
"The regime," he said, "is behaving like Saddam Hussein."

Said the guy currently getting weapons and training from the US to oppose Assad who wants the US to bomb the playing field into something approaching level.

See, now that makes sense.

Assad moving his CW out of Syria and into Iraq and Lebanon? Not so much.

/See also: Responding to obvious trolls.
 
2013-09-14 05:52:00 PM

freak7: Mrtraveler01: So what relevance does your fact have anything to do with this thread then?

It's as relevant as talking about the 2003 invasion of Iraq.


So essentially you're contributing nothing to this thread then huh?
 
2013-09-14 05:54:30 PM
The big difference between 7 and the rest of the US?

He WANTS the US to attack Syria.

Its not just that he thinks it will happen, He wants it to happen.

Deep down he is pretty blood thirsty.
 
2013-09-14 06:00:34 PM

Mrtraveler01: So essentially you're contributing nothing to this thread then huh?


Snappy comeback, I feel so burned.

My contribution to this thread would be in saying there's not a chance in hell that Syria is actually going to comply with any agreement to turn over all of their chemical weapons. They've also come out and said that any agreement to turn them over must also include assurances from the USA that they will not aid the rebels in any way. Since a report was recently released that the CIA is arming the rebels, there's no way any of this actually happens. There will be strikes against Syria before the end of the year, you can take that to the bank.
 
2013-09-14 06:01:09 PM

freak7: Fart_Machine: Yes at one time he did back in the 80s against Iran. However stockpiles only have a shelf life of a few months at most

Interesting since he used them in 1991.


It was reported he did however no other proof or casualties were reported. This was during the time of the first Gulf War when the US blew up 28 suspected chemical and biological storage or production facilities. Between Bush Sr. and Clinton bombing the shait out of Iraq's military infrastructure it's pretty easy to see how supposed weapons sold were "unaccounted for " years later.
 
2013-09-14 06:06:55 PM

freak7: Mrtraveler01: So essentially you're contributing nothing to this thread then huh?

Snappy comeback, I feel so burned.

My contribution to this thread would be in saying there's not a chance in hell that Syria is actually going to comply with any agreement to turn over all of their chemical weapons. They've also come out and said that any agreement to turn them over must also include assurances from the USA that they will not aid the rebels in any way. Since a report was recently released that the CIA is arming the rebels, there's no way any of this actually happens. There will be strikes against Syria before the end of the year, you can take that to the bank.


The facts on the ground currently show your prognosticatiom to be very unlikely.
 
2013-09-14 06:10:47 PM
The only way to end this game is with a massive strike that kills Assad and his family.
What's Putin going to do then?
 
2013-09-14 06:11:41 PM

max_pooper: The facts on the ground currently show your prognosticatiom to be very unlikely.


Um no.
It will happen.
 
2013-09-14 06:14:44 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: The only way to end this game is with a massive strike that kills Assad and his family.
What's Putin going to do then?


Putin doesn't actually give a crap what happens in Syria. The only reason he even has a relationship with them is for financial gain and to troll the USA. Even if Assad is overthrown, Russia will still maintain their trading relationship.
 
2013-09-14 06:16:31 PM

Fart_Machine: It was reported he did however no other proof or casualties were reported. This was during the time of the first Gulf War when the US blew up 28 suspected chemical and biological storage or production facilities. Between Bush Sr. and Clinton bombing the shait out of Iraq's military infrastructure it's pretty easy to see how supposed weapons sold were "unaccounted for " years later.


is this really a "thing" now?

there were around 75 cases of reported chemical weapon use during gulf war part 1: http://cns.miis.edu/npr/pdfs/tucker43.pdf
 
2013-09-14 06:18:02 PM

freak7: Mrtraveler01: So essentially you're contributing nothing to this thread then huh?

Snappy comeback, I feel so burned.

My contribution to this thread would be in saying there's not a chance in hell that Syria is actually going to comply with any agreement to turn over all of their chemical weapons. They've also come out and said that any agreement to turn them over must also include assurances from the USA that they will not aid the rebels in any way. Since a report was recently released that the CIA is arming the rebels, there's no way any of this actually happens. There will be strikes against Syria before the end of the year, you can take that to the bank.


Great, an opinion you can stick behind.  Here's the counter:

There is no chance in hell Syria will not comply with this agreement.  There is no evidence that Assad directly ordered the chemical attack.  http://video.foxnews.com/v/2667532427001/no-direct-proof-that-assad-o r dered-chemical-weapons-attack/  http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/09/201515/intercepts-caught-assad- r ejecting.html#.UjTeIX8f9uQ It is much more likely that the attack was perpetrated by a rouge element of his military command, which has alerted Assad that his command and control structure is compromised, and that his military cannot be trusted with access to the WMD under the circumstances.  Russia's lie that the attack was perpetrated by the rebels has fallen by the wayside. Assad probably never ordered the use of the chemical weapons, knows that he cannot use them for the next year or so anyway without being right back in the shiat, cannot trust his military with them, and knows the it's best for him if they are out of his country and he can get back to fighting his civil war in the manner acceptable to the most of the world.  Russia and Assad wish, under all circumstances to avoid a military strike.  Everything they have done up till now makes that clear.  The conditions that the U.S. not arm the rebels will be accepted and ignored by the U.S. who will do whatever they want, and, because Assad knows that military strikes will occur if he does not comply, he will do so.  I can predict that there will be absolutely no chemical weapons use by the Assad military for foreseeable future. Assad will comply to the best of his abilities, both Russia and the U.S. will see to that.
 
2013-09-14 06:19:54 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: max_pooper: The facts on the ground currently show your prognosticatiom to be very unlikely.

Um no.
It will happen.


Please explain how it's in Assad's best interest to defy Russia to hang on to his chemical weapons?

His only chance of survival is to give up the chemical weapons and continue to fight off the rebels. If he goes against Russia and the UN agreement, the US will start bombing the shiat out of his military installations. Either he will be killed in an air strike or the bombing will given tactical advantage to the rebels who will take him out.

He may very well be stupid enough to think he can stab Russia in the back and maintain power. That's doubtful considering how quickly he went to denying he has chemical weapons to agreeing to give them up as soon as the US threatened air strikes.
 
2013-09-14 06:20:23 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: max_pooper: The facts on the ground currently show your prognosticatiom to be very unlikely.

Um no.
It will happen.


Um no.
Assad isn't interested in building the Arab gas pipeline which would break Putin's Gazprom natural gas monopoly with Europe.
 
2013-09-14 06:28:45 PM
 
2013-09-14 06:29:06 PM

RyogaM: There is no evidence that Assad directly ordered the chemical attack.


Irrelevant, what's certain is that forces under Assad's command are responsible for the chemical attack. Besides, nobody has implied that strikes would be aimed at taking out Assad, this is about getting rid of Syria's chemical weapons and their means of delivery. Nobody is talking about regime change.
 
2013-09-14 06:31:36 PM

Neighborhood Watch: RyogaM: There is no chance in hell Syria will not comply with this agreement.  There is no evidence that Assad directly ordered the chemical attack.


Those two sentences don't seem to exactly... 'jive'.

Are you high?


Except if you read all the sentences that follow.
 
2013-09-14 06:36:55 PM

freak7: RyogaM: There is no evidence that Assad directly ordered the chemical attack.

Irrelevant, what's certain is that forces under Assad's command are responsible for the chemical attack. Besides, nobody has implied that strikes would be aimed at taking out Assad, this is about getting rid of Syria's chemical weapons and their means of delivery. Nobody is talking about regime change.


It is directly relevant to whether Assad wishes to keep his WMDs in the face of a military attack or whether he does not want to keep his weapons.  IF he did not order the attack, as all available evidence suggests, then he now knows that there is a failure in his command...you know what, you got me again, you silly troll you!

I already laid out the reason why Assad would be more willing to give up his weapons if he did not order the attack in the post you are pretending to be responding to, the post you obviously only read the first line of, and the only thing you read in the whole post.  Silly me, thinking you were serious about this.
 
2013-09-14 06:41:49 PM

Neighborhood Watch: RyogaM... dude.

I'm not 'attacking' you.  I'm not even saying that you're wrong.  All I'm saying (as if anybody on earth cares {LOL}) is that you are putting yourself in a bizarre/contradictory position.

A)  You keep gloating about Obama's 'victory' over Assad's WMD

B)  You keep claiming that there's no proof of them


I don't claim to be a genius or anything, but don't those two lines of thinking seem just a 'little bit' divergent?


It does not matter whether Assad gave the command or not. He went from denying he has chemical weapons to giving them up due to threat of US strike. If another sarin gas attack is perpetrated it will be his fault and will be taken out.
 
2013-09-14 06:42:15 PM

RyogaM: It is directly relevant to whether Assad wishes to keep his WMDs in the face of a military attack or whether he does not want to keep his weapons.  IF he did not order the attack, as all available evidence suggests, then he now knows that there is a failure in his command...you know what, you got me again, you silly troll you!


You're making a very foolish and naive assumption that just because we didn't intercept a phone call, email or other communication that he didn't order the attack. Even if he didn't order the attack, which we'll probably never know, it doesn't mean that he doesn't agree with and support his commanders decision. Has Assad removed from power those responsible for launching the attack? Yeah, didn't think so.
 
2013-09-14 06:47:34 PM

Neighborhood Watch: max_pooper: It does not matter whether Assad gave the command or not. He went from denying he has chemical weapons to giving them up due to threat of US strike.


How many has he 'given up' so far?


He stated he would. That provides all the justification the international community needs to take him out if he renigs.
 
2013-09-14 06:50:24 PM

Neighborhood Watch: RyogaM... dude.

I'm not 'attacking' you.  I'm not even saying that you're wrong.  All I'm saying (as if anybody on earth cares {LOL}) is that you are putting yourself in a bizarre/contradictory position.

A)  You keep gloating about Obama's 'victory' over Assad's WMD

B)  You keep claiming that there's no proof of them


I don't claim to be a genius or anything, but don't those two lines of thinking seem just a 'little bit' divergent?


No, I will take this slow so you can understand, and use an analogy, no, stop laughing, I know "anal" is in the word, but stop it.

Let's pretend you have a gun in your home.  I am a police officer, and I do not want you to have the gun in you home because I think you are untrustworthy, and I especially do not want you to use the gun to shoot the stray cats that sometimes go into your yard.  Now, unknown to you and without your permission, your son takes the gun and shoots a stray cat in your yard.  I come to your door and tell you that I am going to take you to jail.  Your neighbor tho' says that he knows that your gun was not used to kill any cats, that someone else killed the cat, and please, please do not take him to jail.  I say fine, give me your gun and you agree.  Guess what? I won.  I got exactly what I want, your gun and the guarantee that your gun will not be used to kill any more stray cats. Got it?

Okay, more slowly, Assad's military used the WMDs, maybe without his permission, and he is so afraid of us coming over and blowing shiat up that he is willing to hand them over to us, even though he personally never ordered the attack.  That is a major victory.  It did not cost us a single dollar, so far, or cost a single American life, and we didn't accidentally kill any innocent civilians.  And, Assad will not be ordering the use of chemical weapons during this whole process for fear that he will be right back in the shiat.
 
2013-09-14 06:52:11 PM

RyogaM: he is willing to hand them over to us


Yeah, lets sit back and see if it actually happens before claiming victory.
 
2013-09-14 06:57:55 PM

freak7: RyogaM: he is willing to hand them over to us

Yeah, lets sit back and see if it actually happens before claiming victory.


You went from being absolutely assured of Assad failing to comply to let's wait and see pretty quick once RyogaM clearly explained the situation. I assume you realize that your predictions are unlikely to come true but don't want to admit it.
 
2013-09-14 07:03:42 PM

Neighborhood Watch: RyogaM: IF he did not order the attack, as all available evidence suggests...

So Obama LIES?


Sure, but that because he's playing the "Bad Cop" to Putin's "Good Cop."  The "Bad Cop" doesn't really want to take you into a a room alone and force all your teeth down your throat.  He's lying, and playing the role.  But, by lying, he allows the "Good Cop" to swoop in and save you from the "Bad Cop" and both the "Bad Cop" and the "Good Cop" get what they want from you: your cooperation.  OR, maybe Obama has actual evidence that Assad ordered the attack and he hasn't released it because it would compromise intelligence gathering means.  I'm comfortable either way, as long as we are not attacking yet.  If we actually do attack, he had better lay out his evidence better.
 
2013-09-14 07:05:25 PM

ad_rizzle: freak7: RyogaM: I never understood this argument, that Saddam gave away his WMDs.  Why?  Why would he do that?  What's the damn point?

To make it appear to the world that he never had them. What some people like to forget is that UN weapons inspectors had documented large amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq, so there's no disputing that he had them.

Also yellow cake, aluminum tubes, and furthermore comma


Don't drop that 'ish!!!


25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-09-14 07:09:46 PM

max_pooper: You went from being absolutely assured of Assad failing to comply to let's wait and see pretty quick once RyogaM clearly explained the situation. I assume you realize that your predictions are unlikely to come true but don't want to admit it.


No, I'm 100% certain he's going to fark around with the terms of the agreement and that the USA will eventually launch strikes. I'll tell you what, I'll bet you a year of Total Fark that there are strikes against Syria in the next 6 months as a result of not making good on this deal.
 
2013-09-14 07:10:23 PM
where them boys gittin' all dem chemical weapons from??
 
2013-09-14 07:11:52 PM

Linux_Yes: where them boys gittin' all dem chemical weapons from??


Uncle Jessie?
 
2013-09-14 07:13:35 PM

Neighborhood Watch: Linux_Yes: where them boys gittin' all dem chemical weapons from??


Manufacturing plants... yo.


The ones that Assad denied he had until the US threaten air strikes? Those manufacturing plants?
 
2013-09-14 07:20:20 PM

max_pooper: Please explain how it's in Assad's best interest to defy Russia to hang on to his chemical weapons?


Assad knows he's a Putin puppet.
Obama must have dozed off during the inauguration-day briefings in which he was told he's a Saudi puppet.
 
2013-09-14 07:31:50 PM
for those saying Assad didn't order the attacks....if he didn't who did and why is his head not on a pike in front of Assad's Hq? Just asking.
 
2013-09-14 07:42:40 PM
I doubt the UN Security Council will be able to find time in their busy schedule of denouncing Israel to do anything useful.
 
2013-09-14 07:45:05 PM

Hobodeluxe: for those saying Assad didn't order the attacks....if he didn't who did and why is his head not on a pike in front of Assad's Hq? Just asking.


He very well may be. It's not like C-Span has a live feed from Assad's office.

Or Assad may not have ordered the attack but takes no object to it happening.

Or it could have been magic sarin gas fairies.
 
2013-09-14 07:47:31 PM

OgreMagi: I doubt the UN Security Council will be able to find time in their busy schedule of denouncing Israel to do anything useful.


I do believe you are attempting some kind of a talking point. Doesn't really work when the US has veto power in the UN security council.
 
2013-09-14 07:55:39 PM

freak7: max_pooper: You went from being absolutely assured of Assad failing to comply to let's wait and see pretty quick once RyogaM clearly explained the situation. I assume you realize that your predictions are unlikely to come true but don't want to admit it.

No, I'm 100% certain he's going to fark around with the terms of the agreement and that the USA will eventually launch strikes. I'll tell you what, I'll bet you a year of Total Fark that there are strikes against Syria in the next 6 months as a result of not making good on this deal.


There needs to be an entire section on Fark dedicated to bets placed in the forums. It could show all outstanding bets, wagers, and the Farkers who made the bets.

Would be even better if they could find a way to broker the wagers.
 
2013-09-14 07:56:05 PM

Halli: OgreMagi: I doubt the UN Security Council will be able to find time in their busy schedule of denouncing Israel to do anything useful.

I do believe you are attempting some kind of a talking point. Doesn't really work when the US has veto power in the UN security council.


That doesn't stop them from trying constantly.
 
2013-09-14 08:13:10 PM

Hobodeluxe: for those saying Assad didn't order the attacks....if he didn't who did and why is his head not on a pike in front of Assad's Hq? Just asking.


It's complicated?  I'm going into the land of pure speculation:

Fact: Assad and Russia still insist that the attack was done by the rebels.
Possible result:  If Assad makes anyone who had the capability of circumventing the control and command structure disappear, it would be taken as an admission that the attack originated from Syrian military.

Rumors:Assad is not in complete control of his military.
Possible result: Whoever made the order may be popular in the military, or, may have family connections that make reprisals too dangerous for Assad and cause him to lose control of his military.

Fact: We don't have complete intelligence.
Fact: Assad and Russia still insist that the attack was done by rebels.
Possible result: The person is already dead, but it is being kept secret so as not to upset the lie told about the rebels.

Wrinkles to consider: Let's pretend Assad ordered the strike.  Let's pretend that strike was carried out as ordered. Now, Assad is saying he didn't order the strike and that the strike was not from his military. How does that effect the moral of his military leaders, to know that they cannot trust their commander in chief to stand behind the orders they give and will disavow both the order and the result?  That's got to be terrible for moral.  This must be taken into account, I think, in some way.
 
2013-09-14 08:15:32 PM

OgreMagi: Halli: OgreMagi: I doubt the UN Security Council will be able to find time in their busy schedule of denouncing Israel to do anything useful.

I do believe you are attempting some kind of a talking point. Doesn't really work when the US has veto power in the UN security council.

That doesn't stop them from trying constantly.


Who exactly does that constantly in the Security Council?
 
2013-09-14 08:17:25 PM

RyogaM: Fact: Assad and Russia still insist that the attack was done by the rebels.
Possible result: If Assad makes anyone who had the capability of circumventing the control and command structure disappear, it would be taken as an admission that the attack originated from Syrian military.


There was a video a a supposed rebel admitting they had used chemical weapons.  Of course, videos can be easily faked.  Just dress someone up and give them a script.

But if it is true, it still doesn't clear Assad and his military.  It is quite possible both sides have "crossed the red line".  Fark 'em.  It's not our problem.  Let allah sort them out.
 
2013-09-14 08:17:50 PM

Halli: OgreMagi: Halli: OgreMagi: I doubt the UN Security Council will be able to find time in their busy schedule of denouncing Israel to do anything useful.

I do believe you are attempting some kind of a talking point. Doesn't really work when the US has veto power in the UN security council.

That doesn't stop them from trying constantly.

Who exactly does that constantly in the Security Council?


Rwanda, they're always blaming the Jews for everything.
 
2013-09-14 08:18:16 PM

Fupac: Would be even better if they could find a way to broker the wagers.


Even without the brokering, the public shaming would suffice.
 
2013-09-14 08:21:16 PM

freak7: Fupac: Would be even better if they could find a way to broker the wagers.

Even without the brokering, the public shaming would suffice.


Yes, we all fondly remember the League of Fail. Are any of them around anymore?
 
2013-09-14 08:37:53 PM

max_pooper: freak7: Fupac: Would be even better if they could find a way to broker the wagers.

Even without the brokering, the public shaming would suffice.

Yes, we all fondly remember the League of Fail. Are any of them around anymore?


Yup but they found new alts.
 
2013-09-14 09:16:57 PM

Fart_Machine: Yup but they found new alts.


ok you got me, that was humorous
 
2013-09-14 09:33:49 PM

freak7: RyogaM: I never understood this argument, that Saddam gave away his WMDs.  Why?  Why would he do that?  What's the damn point?

To make it appear to the world that he never had them. What some people like to forget is that UN weapons inspectors had documented large amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq, so there's no disputing that he had them.


I think you mean "UN weapons inspectors had not documented any unrecorded or unknown chemical weapons in Iraq."   People still trying to justify that farkup Bush's decision to ignore them like to forget that.

From the 2003 Q1 UNMOVIC Report to the Assembly

14. More than 200 chemical and more than 100 biological samples have been collected at different sites. Three quarters of these have been screened using UNMOVIC's own analytical laboratory capabilities at the Baghdad Ongoing
Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Centre (BOMVIC). The results to date have been consistent with Iraq's declarations.
 
2013-09-14 09:47:47 PM
Saddam never had chemical weapons. Hans Blix just made up that detailed list of Saddam's chemical weapons. I've actually known democratics who think this.
 
2013-09-14 10:05:30 PM

the_dude_abides: Fart_Machine: Yup but they found new alts.

ok you got me, that was humorous


Is there any way to upvote a request for such a feature?  That would be marvelous.
 
2013-09-14 10:37:37 PM

Noam Chimpsky: Saddam never had chemical weapons. Hans Blix just made up that detailed list of Saddam's chemical weapons. I've actually known democratics who think this.


Despite the fact that Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds, people are making this claim?  I should stop being surprised by people's ability to ignore provable facts.
 
2013-09-14 10:40:15 PM

max_pooper: I think he is just woefully misinformed


I've not said one thing that isn't true. Your failure is that you refuse to spend even a moment researching what I've said and continue relying on what you think is the truth. Anybody who reads this thread down the road is going to be lol'ing at you and the others sitting here claiming I'm making shiat up, when everything I've said is 100% true. I know I'm getting a kick out of it.
 
2013-09-14 10:43:05 PM

max_pooper: So you are finally admitting that you haven't posted any facts?


Iraq had documented chemical weapons as of 1998, that's a fact. Stop being an ignorant fool and you'd be able to confirm that with a simple Google search. You are hilariously ignorant and continue doubling down with every post.

As for my opinions on Syria, I offered you a bet of and you conveniently ignored it. Man up for once in your internet life and take the best.
 
2013-09-14 10:44:13 PM
bet
 
2013-09-14 10:45:34 PM

freak7: max_pooper: So you are finally admitting that you haven't posted any facts?

Iraq had documented chemical weapons as of 1998, that's a fact. Stop being an ignorant fool and you'd be able to confirm that with a simple Google search. You are hilariously ignorant and continue doubling down with every post.

As for my opinions on Syria, I offered you a bet of and you conveniently ignored it. Man up for once in your internet life and take the best.


What did the documentation say in 2003?
 
2013-09-14 10:46:37 PM

freak7: max_pooper: I think he is just woefully misinformed

I've not said one thing that isn't true. Your failure is that you refuse to spend even a moment researching what I've said and continue relying on what you think is the truth. Anybody who reads this thread down the road is going to be lol'ing at you and the others sitting here claiming I'm making shiat up, when everything I've said is 100% true. I know I'm getting a kick out of it.


So all your prognostications are truths? All the things that you swear are going to happen are "100% true"? Did you come from the future? Did you bring back a copy of Grey's Sports Almanac? I could use it next week in my college pick 'me.

Sadly it's just another post by freak7 stating an easily provable falsehood.
 
2013-09-14 10:47:16 PM

unit63: Man I was so hoping this was going to be a whole thread about how great Soap was. Sad face.


I hate to think of how many people here have no idea what Soap is/was

/Was brilliant IMHO.
 
2013-09-14 10:48:12 PM
This thread needs a Molotov cocktail dropped on it.
 
2013-09-14 10:48:46 PM

Rent Party: freak7: max_pooper: So you are finally admitting that you haven't posted any facts?

Iraq had documented chemical weapons as of 1998, that's a fact. Stop being an ignorant fool and you'd be able to confirm that with a simple Google search. You are hilariously ignorant and continue doubling down with every post.

As for my opinions on Syria, I offered you a bet of and you conveniently ignored it. Man up for once in your internet life and take the best.

What did the documentation say in 2003?


Remember when freak7 claimed that 1998 was the last time UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq? Hilarious.
 
2013-09-14 10:54:19 PM

max_pooper: Remember when freak7 claimed that 1998 was the last time UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq? Hilarious.


Perhaps you should go back and read the comments. I said that the inspectors were booted in 1998 and that there was a 4 year period when they were not in country. They returned in late 2002, not 2003 as you and others had claimed.

Face it, you're ignorant of the basic facts of Iraq's weapons program and are trying to cover your ass by trolling.
 
2013-09-14 11:01:22 PM

studs up: Mrbogey: Granny_Panties: Yes, I know, I'm talking out of my ass. Be gential and use lube...

Well at least you admitted it.

I never made it further than basic college chemistry but chemicals degrade at different rates based upon composition and exposure to other chemicals and energy. I'd only take an expert biochemist's opinion on how long chemical weapons can last before they effectively go inert.

If they are binary chemical weapons, degradation is not an issue.
/not a biochemist


If memory serves, the longer it lasts the more expensive it gets, either because you have to do more to keep it properly sealed to avoid degradation, it's more expensive to make in the first place, or both.  We found 500-odd mustard gas artillery shells in Iraq, we didn't mention it because they were so degraded over the last 15-20 years they'd been sitting that they were less toxic than the stuff we subsidize oil companies to dump in our drinking water.

Well okay that's hyperbole but only a little.

And a quick perusal of binary chemical weapons shows the documented ones are still biodegradable in their component halves, though probably stable as long as you keep them sealed up properly.  They're also surprisingly EASY to make, which I suppose shouldn't be a surprise given the terrorist attack that used it, which we don't talk about because apparently the yellow devils in Tokyo don't count.
 
2013-09-14 11:03:33 PM

freak7: max_pooper: Remember when freak7 claimed that 1998 was the last time UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq? Hilarious.

Perhaps you should go back and read the comments. I said that the inspectors were booted in 1998 and that there was a 4 year period when they were not in country. They returned in late 2002, not 2003 as you and others had claimed.

Face it, you're ignorant of the basic facts of Iraq's weapons program and are trying to cover your ass by trolling.


You only came back with the four year period post after somebody had shown you to be wrong.

You know very little about the facts and back pedal when shown to be wrong.
 
2013-09-14 11:06:44 PM

freak7: max_pooper: Remember when freak7 claimed that 1998 was the last time UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq? Hilarious.

Perhaps you should go back and read the comments. I said that the inspectors were booted in 1998 and that there was a 4 year period when they were not in country. They returned in late 2002, not 2003 as you and others had claimed.

Face it, you're ignorant of the basic facts of Iraq's weapons program and are trying to cover your ass by trolling.


What did they say about it in 2003?
 
2013-09-14 11:08:53 PM

Rent Party: freak7: max_pooper: Remember when freak7 claimed that 1998 was the last time UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq? Hilarious.

Perhaps you should go back and read the comments. I said that the inspectors were booted in 1998 and that there was a 4 year period when they were not in country. They returned in late 2002, not 2003 as you and others had claimed.

Face it, you're ignorant of the basic facts of Iraq's weapons program and are trying to cover your ass by trolling.

What did they say about it in 2003?


Give him a minute, he's not done googling it yet.
 
2013-09-14 11:10:35 PM

freak7: max_pooper: So you are finally admitting that you haven't posted any facts?

Iraq had documented chemical weapons as of 1998, that's a fact. Stop being an ignorant fool and you'd be able to confirm that with a simple Google search. You are hilariously ignorant and continue doubling down with every post.

As for my opinions on Syria, I offered you a bet of and you conveniently ignored it. Man up for once in your internet life and take the best.


Prove it.  If it's easy you can do it yourself instead of demanding others do it, if it ISN'T easy then you should have a reason why it's still supposed to be accepted as dogma.  And you should be prepped for the follow up, "what kind of weapons were they?"  There were munitions found after the invasion which no one talks about because they were all expired, empty, or garbage and waving them around as "proof we were right" would hurt the GOP more than it would help.

Here, the farking Bush-apologist CATO institute for some citations just to show you how it's done.

Hell, I wouldn't b surprised if most of the "gaps" between Saddam's arsenal in the 80s and his complete lack of arsenal in the 90s are covered by Military Intelligence "classified information" that shows just how much bad chemistry the victims of Gulf War syndrome were exposed to.
 
2013-09-14 11:11:42 PM
Take the bet.
 
2013-09-14 11:25:46 PM

freak7: Take the bet.


What exactly is the bet?
 
2013-09-14 11:29:12 PM

max_pooper: freak7: Take the bet.

What exactly is the bet?


He really wants some total fark, and has been trying to get people to take him up on the bet that we will (the US) engage in some kind of conflict with Syria before the end of this year. He wants 6 months of total fark out of it.

Hes 100% in favor of conflict with Syria btw... hes a little blood thirsty.
 
2013-09-14 11:32:17 PM

Heliovdrake: max_pooper: freak7: Take the bet.

What exactly is the bet?

He really wants some total fark, and has been trying to get people to take him up on the bet that we will (the US) engage in some kind of conflict with Syria before the end of this year. He wants 6 months of total fark out of it.

Hes 100% in favor of conflict with Syria btw... hes a little blood thirsty.


Yeah, I'm with Obama. Who are you with, Fox news?
 
2013-09-14 11:32:53 PM

Heliovdrake: max_pooper: freak7: Take the bet.

What exactly is the bet?

He really wants some total fark, and has been trying to get people to take him up on the bet that we will (the US) engage in some kind of conflict with Syria before the end of this year. He wants 6 months of total fark out of it.

Hes 100% in favor of conflict with Syria btw... hes a little blood thirsty.


I know what bet he is talking about. I want him to lay out specifics. I'm not sure he knows enough about the various potential outcomes to properly detail the terms of this bet.
 
2013-09-14 11:36:17 PM

freak7: Heliovdrake: max_pooper: freak7: Take the bet.

What exactly is the bet?

He really wants some total fark, and has been trying to get people to take him up on the bet that we will (the US) engage in some kind of conflict with Syria before the end of this year. He wants 6 months of total fark out of it.

Hes 100% in favor of conflict with Syria btw... hes a little blood thirsty.

Yeah, I'm with Obama. Who are you with, Fox news?


Obama doesn't want war. He is negotiating terms to avoid it. He just willing to use force if necessary.

You desparately want Obama to strike Syria so you dance around and try to claim Obama is just as bad as Bush. You are as ignorant as you are transparent.
 
2013-09-14 11:38:10 PM

freak7: Heliovdrake: max_pooper: freak7: Take the bet.

What exactly is the bet?

He really wants some total fark, and has been trying to get people to take him up on the bet that we will (the US) engage in some kind of conflict with Syria before the end of this year. He wants 6 months of total fark out of it.

Hes 100% in favor of conflict with Syria btw... hes a little blood thirsty.

Yeah, I'm with Obama. Who are you with, Fox news?


I am with avoiding international conflicts that could further destabilize a region, and very likely kill innocents, not to mention could even possibly send us into further conflict with Iran.

I very much hope that Syria and Assad are willing to make a deal and give up its chemical weapons and allow in inspectors to make sure of it.

You don't want this, you want blood, and to you its not even about sending a message that using chemical weapons is a very bad thing to do. You just want America to get involved in another conflict in the hopes that it will make the President unfavorable.
 
2013-09-14 11:38:55 PM

max_pooper: Heliovdrake: max_pooper: freak7: Take the bet.

What exactly is the bet?

He really wants some total fark, and has been trying to get people to take him up on the bet that we will (the US) engage in some kind of conflict with Syria before the end of this year. He wants 6 months of total fark out of it.

Hes 100% in favor of conflict with Syria btw... hes a little blood thirsty.

I know what bet he is talking about. I want him to lay out specifics. I'm not sure he knows enough about the various potential outcomes to properly detail the terms of this bet.


Now I know you're not paying attention. My bet was as simple as it could be, within 6 months, the USA will launch strikes against Syria. Nut up or shut up.
 
2013-09-14 11:39:56 PM

Heliovdrake: freak7: Heliovdrake: max_pooper: freak7: Take the bet.

What exactly is the bet?

He really wants some total fark, and has been trying to get people to take him up on the bet that we will (the US) engage in some kind of conflict with Syria before the end of this year. He wants 6 months of total fark out of it.

Hes 100% in favor of conflict with Syria btw... hes a little blood thirsty.

Yeah, I'm with Obama. Who are you with, Fox news?

I am with avoiding international conflicts that could further destabilize a region, and very likely kill innocents, not to mention could even possibly send us into further conflict with Iran.

I very much hope that Syria and Assad are willing to make a deal and give up its chemical weapons and allow in inspectors to make sure of it.

You don't want this, you want blood, and to you its not even about sending a message that using chemical weapons is a very bad thing to do. You just want America to get involved in another conflict in the hopes that it will make the President unfavorable.


Iran? So now Iran is a threat? You know how I know you watch Fox news?
 
2013-09-14 11:44:26 PM

freak7: Heliovdrake: freak7: Heliovdrake: max_pooper: freak7: Take the bet.

What exactly is the bet?

He really wants some total fark, and has been trying to get people to take him up on the bet that we will (the US) engage in some kind of conflict with Syria before the end of this year. He wants 6 months of total fark out of it.

Hes 100% in favor of conflict with Syria btw... hes a little blood thirsty.

Yeah, I'm with Obama. Who are you with, Fox news?

I am with avoiding international conflicts that could further destabilize a region, and very likely kill innocents, not to mention could even possibly send us into further conflict with Iran.

I very much hope that Syria and Assad are willing to make a deal and give up its chemical weapons and allow in inspectors to make sure of it.

You don't want this, you want blood, and to you its not even about sending a message that using chemical weapons is a very bad thing to do. You just want America to get involved in another conflict in the hopes that it will make the President unfavorable.

Iran? So now Iran is a threat? You know how I know you watch Fox news?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Syria_relations

On 16 June 2006 the defence ministers of Iran and Syria signed an agreement for military cooperation against what they called the "common threats" presented by Israel and the United States. Details of the agreement were not specified, however then Syrian defense minister Najjar said "Iran considers Syria's security its own security, and we consider our defense capabilities to be those of Syria." The visit also resulted in the sale of Iranian military hardware to Syria.[7] In addition to receiving military hardware, Iran has consistently invested billions of dollars into the Syrian economy.
 
2013-09-14 11:46:49 PM

freak7: max_pooper: Heliovdrake: max_pooper: freak7: Take the bet.

What exactly is the bet?

He really wants some total fark, and has been trying to get people to take him up on the bet that we will (the US) engage in some kind of conflict with Syria before the end of this year. He wants 6 months of total fark out of it.

Hes 100% in favor of conflict with Syria btw... hes a little blood thirsty.

I know what bet he is talking about. I want him to lay out specifics. I'm not sure he knows enough about the various potential outcomes to properly detail the terms of this bet.

Now I know you're not paying attention. My bet was as simple as it could be, within 6 months, the USA will launch strikes against Syria. Nut up or shut up.


What do you mean by strike? Bombing raids? Drone attacks? Or does any act of war count like blockades or cyber attacks? Does it count if US aided rebels shell Assad's military installations? Does it count if it's UN envoy in which the US is providing support but not US servicemen doing the actual bombing?

Like I suspected, you do not know enough about the possible outcomes to property detail the terms of this bet.
 
2013-09-14 11:48:48 PM

Heliovdrake: freak7: Heliovdrake: freak7: Heliovdrake: max_pooper: freak7: Take the bet.

What exactly is the bet?

He really wants some total fark, and has been trying to get people to take him up on the bet that we will (the US) engage in some kind of conflict with Syria before the end of this year. He wants 6 months of total fark out of it.

Hes 100% in favor of conflict with Syria btw... hes a little blood thirsty.

Yeah, I'm with Obama. Who are you with, Fox news?

I am with avoiding international conflicts that could further destabilize a region, and very likely kill innocents, not to mention could even possibly send us into further conflict with Iran.

I very much hope that Syria and Assad are willing to make a deal and give up its chemical weapons and allow in inspectors to make sure of it.

You don't want this, you want blood, and to you its not even about sending a message that using chemical weapons is a very bad thing to do. You just want America to get involved in another conflict in the hopes that it will make the President unfavorable.

Iran? So now Iran is a threat? You know how I know you watch Fox news?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Syria_relations

On 16 June 2006 the defence ministers of Iran and Syria signed an agreement for military cooperation against what they called the "common threats" presented by Israel and the United States. Details of the agreement were not specified, however then Syrian defense minister Najjar said "Iran considers Syria's security its own security, and we consider our defense capabilities to be those of Syria." The visit also resulted in the sale of Iranian military hardware to Syria.[7] In addition to receiving military hardware, Iran has consistently invested billions of dollars into the Syrian economy.


The list of things freak7 has been shown to be wrong about in this thread keeps getting longer and longer.
 
2013-09-14 11:49:04 PM

Heliovdrake: freak7: Heliovdrake: freak7: Heliovdrake: max_pooper: freak7: Take the bet.

What exactly is the bet?

He really wants some total fark, and has been trying to get people to take him up on the bet that we will (the US) engage in some kind of conflict with Syria before the end of this year. He wants 6 months of total fark out of it.

Hes 100% in favor of conflict with Syria btw... hes a little blood thirsty.

Yeah, I'm with Obama. Who are you with, Fox news?

I am with avoiding international conflicts that could further destabilize a region, and very likely kill innocents, not to mention could even possibly send us into further conflict with Iran.

I very much hope that Syria and Assad are willing to make a deal and give up its chemical weapons and allow in inspectors to make sure of it.

You don't want this, you want blood, and to you its not even about sending a message that using chemical weapons is a very bad thing to do. You just want America to get involved in another conflict in the hopes that it will make the President unfavorable.

Iran? So now Iran is a threat? You know how I know you watch Fox news?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Syria_relations

On 16 June 2006 the defence ministers of Iran and Syria signed an agreement for military cooperation against what they called the "common threats" presented by Israel and the United States. Details of the agreement were not specified, however then Syrian defense minister Najjar said "Iran considers Syria's security its own security, and we consider our defense capabilities to be those of Syria." The visit also resulted in the sale of Iranian military hardware to Syria.[7] In addition to receiving military hardware, Iran has consistently invested billions of dollars into the Syrian economy.


Oh well if they signed an agreement. Lol!
 
2013-09-14 11:51:07 PM

freak7: Heliovdrake: freak7: Heliovdrake: freak7: Heliovdrake: max_pooper: freak7: Take the bet.

What exactly is the bet?

He really wants some total fark, and has been trying to get people to take him up on the bet that we will (the US) engage in some kind of conflict with Syria before the end of this year. He wants 6 months of total fark out of it.

Hes 100% in favor of conflict with Syria btw... hes a little blood thirsty.

Yeah, I'm with Obama. Who are you with, Fox news?

I am with avoiding international conflicts that could further destabilize a region, and very likely kill innocents, not to mention could even possibly send us into further conflict with Iran.

I very much hope that Syria and Assad are willing to make a deal and give up its chemical weapons and allow in inspectors to make sure of it.

You don't want this, you want blood, and to you its not even about sending a message that using chemical weapons is a very bad thing to do. You just want America to get involved in another conflict in the hopes that it will make the President unfavorable.

Iran? So now Iran is a threat? You know how I know you watch Fox news?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Syria_relations

On 16 June 2006 the defence ministers of Iran and Syria signed an agreement for military cooperation against what they called the "common threats" presented by Israel and the United States. Details of the agreement were not specified, however then Syrian defense minister Najjar said "Iran considers Syria's security its own security, and we consider our defense capabilities to be those of Syria." The visit also resulted in the sale of Iranian military hardware to Syria.[7] In addition to receiving military hardware, Iran has consistently invested billions of dollars into the Syrian economy.

Oh well if they signed an agreement. Lol!


It is an agreement that you knew nothing about, big suprise.
 
2013-09-14 11:56:11 PM
Iran has been making idle threats for decades, but they're really, really serious this time.
 
2013-09-15 12:03:43 AM
Sooooo..... does this mean you're not going to tell us what those UN weapons inspectors had to say in 2003?
 
2013-09-15 12:07:00 AM

Rent Party: Sooooo..... does this mean you're not going to tell us what those UN weapons inspectors had to say in 2003?


Surely he has had enough time to google it by now. After all the Internet is a wealth of information right at your finger tips.

/anyone notice the post count in this thread jumping around? I guess the mods are farking from the gin tank.
 
2013-09-15 12:07:23 AM

Rent Party: Sooooo..... does this mean you're not going to tell us what those UN weapons inspectors had to say in 2003?


They said the couldn't find signs of remaining chemical weapons or any ongoing programs to develop wmd's. They also said they couldn't find chemical weapons they had documented prior to being kicked out in 1998,or documentation that they had been destroyed.

Son, you just been schooled.
 
2013-09-15 12:14:41 AM

freak7: Rent Party: Sooooo..... does this mean you're not going to tell us what those UN weapons inspectors had to say in 2003?

They said the couldn't find signs of remaining chemical weapons or any ongoing programs to develop wmd's. They also said they couldn't find chemical weapons they had documented prior to being kicked out in 1998,or documentation that they had been destroyed.

Son, you just been schooled.


Schooled him? By repeating facts that he has already stated? Your "arguements" are pathetic.
 
2013-09-15 12:16:35 AM

max_pooper: freak7: Rent Party: Sooooo..... does this mean you're not going to tell us what those UN weapons inspectors had to say in 2003?

They said the couldn't find signs of remaining chemical weapons or any ongoing programs to develop wmd's. They also said they couldn't find chemical weapons they had documented prior to being kicked out in 1998,or documentation that they had been destroyed.

Son, you just been schooled.

Schooled him? By repeating facts that he has already stated? Your "arguements" are pathetic.


Nobody said a word about missing chemical weapons before I just did. You want us to believe that the UN confirmed that Iraq had no chemical weapons in 2003 and that's flat out not true.
 
2013-09-15 12:18:42 AM

freak7: You want us to believe that the UN confirmed that Iraq had no chemical weapons in 2003 and that's flat out not true.


Then how come we were not able to find any evidence of a chemical weapons program after we invaded Iraq in 2003?

(The desperation to revise history is very strong in here)
 
2013-09-15 12:19:15 AM

freak7: max_pooper: freak7: Rent Party: Sooooo..... does this mean you're not going to tell us what those UN weapons inspectors had to say in 2003?

They said the couldn't find signs of remaining chemical weapons or any ongoing programs to develop wmd's. They also said they couldn't find chemical weapons they had documented prior to being kicked out in 1998,or documentation that they had been destroyed.

Son, you just been schooled.

Schooled him? By repeating facts that he has already stated? Your "arguements" are pathetic.

Nobody said a word about missing chemical weapons before I just did. You want us to believe that the UN confirmed that Iraq had no chemical weapons in 2003 and that's flat out not true.


Funny, I don't remember stating any of that. You've moved on to projection. You have failed at stating facts, you've back pedaled, you dodged questions and now you are making absolute statements about what people believe.
 
2013-09-15 12:23:20 AM

freak7: Rent Party: Sooooo..... does this mean you're not going to tell us what those UN weapons inspectors had to say in 2003?

They said the couldn't find signs of remaining chemical weapons or any ongoing programs to develop wmd's. They also said they couldn't find chemical weapons they had documented prior to being kicked out in 1998,or documentation that they had been destroyed.

Son, you just been schooled.


Actually the west had the documentation before the war began, they just didn't fully credit it.

Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamel al-Majid, defected to Jordan along with his wife (Saddam's daughter) after the first Gulf War. He claimed to have overseen the destruction of Saddam's WMD programs. In the build up to the war in 2003 Rumsfeld et al continued to use Kamel's testimony that Saddam had operated a WMD program including Bio, CW and Nuclear. What they did not mention was Kamel's claims that those WMDs were all destroyed (in secret so as not to embolden Iraq's enemies).

[themoreyouknow]

There was no "bad intel" in the lead up to that war as the GOP continues to insist to this day there were just flat out lies coming one after another a mile a minute.

/Fun fact: Kamel was eventually talked into returning back to Iraq where his wife divorced him as a traitor and he was shot dead within 24 hours.
 
2013-09-15 12:25:29 AM
I just came in here to gawk at the freak7 show.
 
2013-09-15 12:25:55 AM

Mrtraveler01: freak7: You want us to believe that the UN confirmed that Iraq had no chemical weapons in 2003 and that's flat out not true.

Then how come we were not able to find any evidence of a chemical weapons program after we invaded Iraq in 2003?

(The desperation to revise history is very strong in here)


How come Iraq couldn't provide proof that chemical weapons had been destroyed and programs dismantled?

You certainly are trying to rewrite things.
 
2013-09-15 12:26:32 AM

Kittypie070: I just came in here to gawk at the freak7 show.


How was your ice cream?
 
2013-09-15 12:29:50 AM

spawn73: vygramul: freak7: RyogaM: I never understood this argument, that Saddam gave away his WMDs.  Why?  Why would he do that?  What's the damn point?

To make it appear to the world that he never had them. What some people like to forget is that UN weapons inspectors had documented large amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq, so there's no disputing that he had them.

The entire Hans Blix thing was to see what he did with them: destroy them like he was supposed to, or hide them or send them elsewhere.

He probably had destroyed them, but he wanted his neighbors to think he still had them. Plausible indisputability.

He had destroyed them, as he said so when he saw the writing on the wall. Blix had trouble accounting for every single piece because Iraq apparently were shiatty with bookkeeping. It's good to destroy your inventory, but the UN would like to see where exactly in the desert every single piece was etc.

And it's not "probably". I'm out of this thread. not good for me.

farking tards. It's Iraq war 2 all over again. Doomed to repeat history over and over again.


Looks like somebody mentioned the unaccounted for weapons in the 2003 report.
 
2013-09-15 12:33:24 AM

freak7: Kittypie070: I just came in here to gawk at the freak7 show.

How was your ice cream?


My ice cream was farkin' excellent.
 
2013-09-15 12:35:23 AM

freak7: How come Iraq couldn't provide proof that chemical weapons had been destroyed and programs dismantled?


In short, Saddam didn't think his cunning plan all the way though when he destroyed his stockpiles secretly.

The Bush admin cherry picked the hell out of the intel in order to drum up support for their military adventurism that largely ended up benefiting China more than anyone else in the region.
 
2013-09-15 02:08:21 AM

Kittypie070: I just came in here to gawk at the freak7 show.


same here
 
2013-09-15 03:26:40 AM

freak7: Iran has been making idle threats for decades, but they're really, really serious this time.


news.images.itv.com
 
2013-09-15 05:16:28 AM

OgreMagi: Noam Chimpsky: Saddam never had chemical weapons. Hans Blix just made up that detailed list of Saddam's chemical weapons. I've actually known democratics who think this.

Despite the fact that Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds, people are making this claim?  I should stop being surprised by people's ability to ignore provable facts.


People knew Saddam had chemical weapons from when he gassed the Kurds. They weren't the reason for the invasion. The troll is just knocking down an easy strawman.
 
2013-09-15 05:30:18 AM

Kittypie070: My ice cream was farkin' excellent.


i293.photobucket.com

Approves that message.

/Having a bowl of Mint choco-chip ice cream at the moment so I'm getting a real kick...
 
2013-09-15 08:27:44 AM

spawn73: vygramul: freak7: RyogaM: I never understood this argument, that Saddam gave away his WMDs.  Why?  Why would he do that?  What's the damn point?

To make it appear to the world that he never had them. What some people like to forget is that UN weapons inspectors had documented large amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq, so there's no disputing that he had them.

The entire Hans Blix thing was to see what he did with them: destroy them like he was supposed to, or hide them or send them elsewhere.

He probably had destroyed them, but he wanted his neighbors to think he still had them. Plausible indisputability.

He had destroyed them, as he said so when he saw the writing on the wall. Blix had trouble accounting for every single piece because Iraq apparently were shiatty with bookkeeping. It's good to destroy your inventory, but the UN would like to see where exactly in the desert every single piece was etc.

And it's not "probably". I'm out of this thread. not good for me.

farking tards. It's Iraq war 2 all over again. Doomed to repeat history over and over again.


Hans Blix disagrees with you. In fact, after the Iraq invasion, he was asked if he felt vindicated because the US hadn't found any. His response was that it was too soon, and that the US should be given more time to find them. (He did add that it was more time than the US was willing to give him.)

So apparently Blix doesn't think it was unreasonable to think Iraq had them. He felt that war wasn't justified, but that doesn't mean it was obvious on its face that Saddam didn't have them. And there's a reason it wasn't obvious on its face Saddam didn't have them - because, well, it wasn't obvious on its face Saddam didn't have them.

Iraq 2? Please. The similarities are entirely superficial.
 
2013-09-15 08:29:25 AM

Halli: People knew Saddam had chemical weapons from when he gassed the Kurds. They weren't the reason for the invasion. The troll is just knocking down an easy strawman.


Part of me wants to think the reason that the invasion was so easy to justify was that Saddam Hussein was an epic IRL Troll, the likes of which every 4channer wishes they could aspire to be.

Before you call me a Bush apologist, however, just stick with me here as I lay this out. Everyone knew that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons thanks to the Kurds and attacks on Iran in the early 90s, as well as open admissions from the Iraqi Government. But, as we know today, Saddam had destroyed most of his active weapons, and what WAS found was old agents that would have killed the people handling them before they killed anyone else. But Saddam had a reputation in the middle east. He was king shiat of fark America mountain thanks to the Iraqi War and thanks to "Standing up to the West", and as long as he had that going for him, no one would mess with him.

So, even though he complied, he trolled the world by saying he wouldn't allow UN inspections, and was still doing stuff that pissed America off.

He was so good at doing this, that when the time came to prove he was in compliance, no one believed him, and the US was in a revenge-frenzy with a killboner thanks to 9/11.
 
2013-09-15 08:38:18 AM

Halli: OgreMagi: Noam Chimpsky: Saddam never had chemical weapons. Hans Blix just made up that detailed list of Saddam's chemical weapons. I've actually known democratics who think this.

Despite the fact that Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds, people are making this claim?  I should stop being surprised by people's ability to ignore provable facts.

People knew Saddam had chemical weapons from when he gassed the Kurds. They weren't the reason for the invasion. The troll is just knocking down an easy strawman.


The Bush administration saw an opportunity to put into place their magical-thinking vision of a new Middle East based on American power. They decided the problem was that we didn't throw our weight around enough and force the world to change. It was like they never left high school.

/Even were they the reason, the possession of chemical weapons was not in and of itself the reason but that someone the administration insisted couldn't be trusted not to hand them to terrorists to attack us.
 
2013-09-15 08:56:02 AM
Five pages of  "It's different when we do it". Well done Defenders of The Faith, well done.
 
2013-09-15 10:41:21 AM

vygramul: freak7: RyogaM: I never understood this argument, that Saddam gave away his WMDs.  Why?  Why would he do that?  What's the damn point?

To make it appear to the world that he never had them. What some people like to forget is that UN weapons inspectors had documented large amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq, so there's no disputing that he had them.

The entire Hans Blix thing was to see what he did with them: destroy them like he was supposed to, or hide them or send them elsewhere.

He probably had destroyed them, but he wanted his neighbors to think he still had them. Plausible indisputability.


The UN accounted for the so-called WMD's in a report waay back before the Bushies tried to discredit Blix and Scott Ritter.
There was a small amount of sarin that Iraq claimed to have destroyed but could not prove. This was Saddam's supposed stockpile. Which the report even said were left over from 98. And these were deemed too degraded at the time to be any use, having only a few weeks shelf life. (Weapons of Mild Irritation)
 
2013-09-15 12:04:13 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: Five pages of  "It's different when we do it". Well done Defenders of The Faith, well done.


No it just shows your reading comprehension is terrible.
 
2013-09-15 12:33:59 PM

freak7: Rent Party: Sooooo..... does this mean you're not going to tell us what those UN weapons inspectors had to say in 2003?

They said the couldn't find signs of remaining chemical weapons or any ongoing programs to develop wmd's. They also said they couldn't find chemical weapons they had documented prior to being kicked out in 1998,or documentation that they had been destroyed.

Son, you just been schooled.


By "schooled" you mean "lied too?"

From the 2003 Q1 UNMOVIC Report to the Assembly

14. More than 200 chemical and more than 100 biological samples have been collected at different sites. Three quarters of these have been screened using UNMOVIC's own analytical laboratory capabilities at the Baghdad Ongoing
Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Centre (BOMVIC).The results to date have been consistent with Iraq's declarations.

What happened in Q2-2003?  I'll give you a hint.  It has to do with flag waving jingoists just like yourself.
 
2013-09-15 12:48:04 PM

quatchi: freak7: Rent Party: Sooooo..... does this mean you're not going to tell us what those UN weapons inspectors had to say in 2003?

They said the couldn't find signs of remaining chemical weapons or any ongoing programs to develop wmd's. They also said they couldn't find chemical weapons they had documented prior to being kicked out in 1998,or documentation that they had been destroyed.

Son, you just been schooled.

Actually the west had the documentation before the war began, they just didn't fully credit it.

Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamel al-Majid, defected to Jordan along with his wife (Saddam's daughter) after the first Gulf War. He claimed to have overseen the destruction of Saddam's WMD programs. In the build up to the war in 2003 Rumsfeld et al continued to use Kamel's testimony that Saddam had operated a WMD program including Bio, CW and Nuclear. What they did not mention was Kamel's claims that those WMDs were all destroyed (in secret so as not to embolden Iraq's enemies).

[themoreyouknow]

There was no "bad intel" in the lead up to that war as the GOP continues to insist to this day there were just flat out lies coming one after another a mile a minute.

/Fun fact: Kamel was eventually talked into returning back to Iraq where his wife divorced him as a traitor and he was shot dead within 24 hours.


Hell, the effectiveness of Operation Desert Fox was phenomenal, and destroyed most of Iraq's capabilities in... 1998.   Right about when the US withdrew the inspections teams.  Of course, right wing assholes were too busy screaming "Wag the dog!!!" to notice.

Hey, perhaps there is something to that.   I wonder which US Diplomat said the following...

"Burleigh informed me that on instructions from Washington it would be 'prudent to take measures to ensure the safety and security of UNSCOM staff presently in Iraq.  I told him that I would act on this advice and remove my staff from Iraq."

There is a reason that we didn't find this massive weapons program in 2003.   There is a reason the press never talks about what we did find, which was the bombed out remnants of a program that ceased to exist about five years earlier.

It wasn't an intelligence failure, it was manipulating intelligence for a political purpose.   All the intelligence we needed to know what was really going on was right there, augmented by over 200 UN weapons inspectors on the ground.   Manipulating national security data is a felony, by the way.
 
2013-09-15 02:56:39 PM

dstrick44: vygramul: freak7: RyogaM: I never understood this argument, that Saddam gave away his WMDs.  Why?  Why would he do that?  What's the damn point?

To make it appear to the world that he never had them. What some people like to forget is that UN weapons inspectors had documented large amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq, so there's no disputing that he had them.

The entire Hans Blix thing was to see what he did with them: destroy them like he was supposed to, or hide them or send them elsewhere.

He probably had destroyed them, but he wanted his neighbors to think he still had them. Plausible indisputability.

The UN accounted for the so-called WMD's in a report waay back before the Bushies tried to discredit Blix and Scott Ritter.
There was a small amount of sarin that Iraq claimed to have destroyed but could not prove. This was Saddam's supposed stockpile. Which the report even said were left over from 98. And these were deemed too degraded at the time to be any use, having only a few weeks shelf life. (Weapons of Mild Irritation)


You say it like it was clear in 2003. Hans Blix said it wasn't clear. He said it wasn't clear in 2004. I'm taking Hans Blix's word for it both before AND after, not just before.
 
2013-09-15 05:05:03 PM
Interesting.
 
2013-09-15 06:49:11 PM

Rent Party: Hell, the effectiveness of Operation Desert Fox was phenomenal, and destroyed most of Iraq's capabilities in... 1998.   Right about when the US withdrew the inspections teams.  Of course, right wing assholes were too busy screaming "Wag the dog!!!" to notice.

Hey, perhaps there is something to that.   I wonder which US Diplomat said the following...

"Burleigh informed me that on instructions from Washington it would be 'prudent to take measures to ensure the safety and security of UNSCOM staff presently in Iraq.  I told him that I would act on this advice and remove my staff from Iraq."

There is a reason that we didn't find this massive weapons program in 2003.   There is a reason the press never talks about what we did find, which was the bombed out remnants of a program that ceased to exist about five years earlier.

It wasn't an intelligence failure, it was manipulating intelligence for a political purpose.   All the intelligence we needed to know what was really going on was right there, augmented by over 200 UN weapons inspectors on the ground.   Manipulating national security data is a felony, by the way.


Cheney will never see the inside of a jail cell, sadly.

Good call on the "Saddam threw the inspectors out" lie there as well. Almost forgot that one.
 
Displayed 229 of 229 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report