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 (44 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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used chemicals that had to be combined to form an expanding foam but sometimes it fails because one of the compounds is out of date.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??
 
Displayed 50 of 229 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report