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 38
    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  
•       •       •

1616 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-09-14 03:35:48 PM  
3 votes:

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 02:38:36 PM  
3 votes:
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 12:37:49 PM  
3 votes:
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 03:15:24 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:43:09 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:19:24 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:34:06 PM  
2 votes:
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 12:33:00 PM  
2 votes:
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 11:46:49 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:33:49 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:13:10 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:55:39 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:31:50 PM  
1 votes:
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 07:03:42 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:50:24 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:31:36 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:28:45 PM  
1 votes:
2013-09-14 05:44:36 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:04:44 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:32:42 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:25:51 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:49:50 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:32:42 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:27:17 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:23:28 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:53:31 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:49:34 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:31:31 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:20:02 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:52:37 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:27:22 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:08:10 PM  
1 votes:
Sounds like something Europe ought to take care of.
2013-09-14 01:07:24 PM  
1 votes:
 agitprop.typepad.com
2013-09-14 12:58:36 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:55:46 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:51:07 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:49:13 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:26:27 PM  
1 votes:
So Syria has their own Chalabi?
 
Displayed 38 of 38 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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