Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

1618 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Sep 2013 at 12:14 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



229 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 229 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report