Republican Candidates

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Tarball
I will agree the democrtes are turning into a small pile of crap, but nothing like the monstrouse pile of Dog sh*t the republican party is nowdays,

So you concede the fact that congress is not enough proof for me? We might be making some headway.
-narrowminded Idiot-
I'm narrow minded because I'm right.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
By no means am I standing up for saddam, But the mole hill that you are trying to make into a mountain in no way justifies the invasion.
But your point is understood.
I did understand they had found small caches of such materials but can't be considered weapons of mass destruction.
Reply With Quote

And with the evidence of that report and the evidence in my earlier report stands to reason Sadaam could have had more and moved them as the previous report is stating and how he moved them.
which coincides with my belief hw did not lie. Now if the report ever comes out that Sadaam never had or moved weapons then I will conceed Bush lied. But to believe a president of this nation would lie to the people so he could start a war scares me. What scares me more is the fact many people believe this and give no credence to the fact that the guy may have different views from you, but he is not a Hitler style monster that many make him out to be.
I disliked clinton's views and positions, but not once did I jump on the impeachment band wagon just because he committed perjury. Put me on the stand and ask me if I cheated on my wife with her watching, I am going to lie as well....
This is the problem with our two parties, each one tries to demonize the other to the point that no matter what one side says the other sides automatically dismisses it as that side is evil.
And I am still waiting...for one of those 10...lol
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Tarball
I did understand they had found small caches of such materials but can't be considered weapons of mass destruction.
How is sarin and mustard gas NOT a WMD the very classification of those are chemical weapons. Which are then under Weapons of Mass Destruction?
It is simple human nature, what happens when a company who has been almost caught with their pants down financially? They have a giant paper shredding party, do you not think it is plausible and an acceptable conclusion that Hussien could have possibly done the same?
-Close Minded Idiot-
You don't need an open mind if you are already Right!
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
Put me on the stand and ask me if I cheated on my wife with her watching, I am going to lie as well....
lol, it was a vast right wing conspiracy.
Well, think about it, she had to have already known about his philandering so it was of no suprise to her. But in a normal case where this is the firs time, you have a point.
-Close Minded Idiot-
You don't need an open mind if you are already Right!
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
lol, it was a vast right wing conspiracy.
Well, think about it, she had to have already known about his philandering so it was of no suprise to her. But in a normal case where this is the firs time, you have a point.
That may be true, but that is only speculation. She has never stated she knew about so one has to deduce he may have wanted to still hide it from her even if he had been caught in the past, no matter how many times a guy cheats on his wife, he will still deny it each time.....just like the song "It wasn't me."
 

1journeyman

Active Member
This is just so sad...
I can accept the fact that people don't agree with everything President Bush does. Heck, I completely hate some of his policies (immigration and government spending).
That said... There is a large segment of our country so blinded by hate they swallow any left wing dribble out there as long as it says something mean or evil about President Bush.
Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 for WMDs, yet the posters attacking the current Iraq war want to ignore that.
Every leading Democrat in 1998 supported the decision. I've post various quotes from some of them (Including Pelosi). Somehow, however, President Bush made the whole WMD thing up 4 years later....
The line of the week goes to Tarball:
Originally Posted by tarball
I did understand they had found small caches of such materials but can't be considered weapons of mass destruction.
How many artillery shells filled with nerve agents do you need to qualify as a WMD to you in your opinion? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000? Just so we know for next time... What is the maximum biological and chemical weapons you can have and be under the WMD classification?
 

mfp1016

Member
I'm just waiting for a conservative thinktank to come out with a irrefutable evidence that Democrats cause Cancer so that I can blindly follow the report and go to extreme lengths to avoid carcinogenic-dems. (before you Dems get your panties in a twist, that's a reference to The Simpsons)
 

tarball

Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
This is just so sad...
I can accept the fact that people don't agree with everything President Bush does. Heck, I completely hate some of his policies (immigration and government spending).
That said... There is a large segment of our country so blinded by hate they swallow any left wing dribble out there as long as it says something mean or evil about President Bush.
Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 for WMDs, yet the posters attacking the current Iraq war want to ignore that.
Every leading Democrat in 1998 supported the decision. I've post various quotes from some of them (Including Pelosi). Somehow, however, President Bush made the whole WMD thing up 4 years later....
The line of the week goes to Tarball:
How many artillery shells filled with nerve agents do you need to qualify as a WMD to you in your opinion? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000? Just so we know for next time... What maximum biological and chemical weapons you can have and be under the WMD classification?
Shelf life
Sarin has a relatively short shelf life, and will degrade after a period of several weeks to several months. The shelf life may be greatly shortened by impurities in precursor materials. According to the CIA[1], in 1989 the Iraqis destroyed 40 or more tons of sarin that had decomposed, and that some Iraqi sarin had a shelf life of only a few weeks owing mostly to impure precursors.
Mustard gas is a blister agent, less likely to kill large numbers of people than nerve agents like sarin and VX. Mustard gas is far less deadly than nerve gas, limiting its appeal as a weapon. But depending on the level of exposure, mustard gas can also leave victims with more lasting injuries. Dr. Jean Pascal Zanders of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute says that terrorists might consider using mustard gas to cause economic or social disruption—by contaminating a transportation route, for instance—but probably wouldn’t use it to cause mass casualties.
Both of the chemical agents were more then 10 yrs old, which leaves them useless as a weapon of mass destruction. Especially since they were not weaponized.
Don’t believe me, do your own research
New comment of the week,1 Journeyman is wrong, Once again.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Tarball
Shelf life
Sarin has a relatively short shelf life, and will degrade after a period of several weeks to several months. The shelf life may be greatly shortened by impurities in precursor materials. According to the CIA[1], in 1989 the Iraqis destroyed 40 or more tons of sarin that had decomposed, and that some Iraqi sarin had a shelf life of only a few weeks owing mostly to impure precursors.
Mustard gas is a blister agent, less likely to kill large numbers of people than nerve agents like sarin and VX. Mustard gas is far less deadly than nerve gas, limiting its appeal as a weapon. But depending on the level of exposure, mustard gas can also leave victims with more lasting injuries. Dr. Jean Pascal Zanders of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute says that terrorists might consider using mustard gas to cause economic or social disruption—by contaminating a transportation route, for instance—but probably wouldn’t use it to cause mass casualties.
Both of the chemical agents were more then 10 yrs old, which leaves them useless as a weapon of mass destruction. Especially since they were not weaponized.
Don’t believe me, do your own research
New comment of the week,1 Journeyman is wrong, Once again.
But it was sarin gas, and it was mustard gas. It was produced by Iraq. I don't see how he was wrong.

-narrow minded Idiot-
In my narrow purview is the truth. Because that is where I chose to put my narrow mind.
 

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
Or moved out, he had the time, they have some circumstantial evidence. But whatever happened to them, I think those secrets went down with sadaam.
The Israeli officer, Lieutenant General Moshe Yaalon, asserted that Saddam spirited his chemical weapons out of the country on the eve of the war. "He transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria," General Yaalon told The New York Sun over dinner in New York on Tuesday night. "No one went to Syria to find it."
By IRA STOLL
Staff Reporter of the Sun
January 26, 2006
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.
The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new book, "Saddam's Secrets," released this week. He detailed the transfers in an interview yesterday with The New York Sun.
"There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," Mr. Sada said. "I am confident they were taken over."
Mr. Sada's comments come just more than a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria
Newsmax.com
Shaw was initially tapped to make an inventory of Saddam's conventional weapons stockpiles, based on intelligence estimates of arms deals he had concluded with the former Soviet Union, China and France.
He estimated that Saddam had amassed 100 million tons of munitions - roughly 60 percent of the entire U.S. arsenal. "The origins of these weapons were Russian, Chinese and French in declining order of magnitude, with the Russians holding the lion's share and the Chinese just edging out the French for second place."
But as Shaw's office increasingly got involved in ongoing intelligence to identify Iraqi weapons programs before the war, he also got "a flow of information from British contacts on the ground at the Syrian border and from London" via non-U.S. government contacts.
"The intelligence included multiple sightings of truck convoys, convoys going north to the Syrian border and returning empty," he said
CIA can’t rule out WMD move to Syria
The CIA’s chief weapons inspector said he cannot rule out the possibility that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were secretly shipped to Syria before the March 2003 invasion, citing “sufficiently credible” evidence that WMDs may have been moved there. Inspector Charles Duelfer, who heads the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), made the findings in an addendum to his final report filed last year. He said the search for WMD in Iraq — the main reason President Bush went to war to oust Saddam Hussein — has been exhausted without finding such weapons. Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in the early 1990s.
But on the question of Syria, Mr. Duelfer did not close the books. “ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war,” Mr. Duelfer said in a report posted on the CIA’s Web site Monday night. He cited some evidence of a transfer. “Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other reasons has yet to be determined,” he said. “There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation.”
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Tarball
You're quite ill informed aren't you. Those 2 Government have extremely radical religious governments. Where do you think the Taliban & al qaeda came from.

Oh man you're killing me, you should put together a standup routine

I know where they came from. I also know the governments have looked the other way to some extent regarding some of the groups activities but as far as outright government support for terrorism both countries combined didn't do as much to outright support terrorism as Iraq had, let alone Iran which is the undisputed world leader at supporting terrorists.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Tarball
... Both of the chemical agents were more then 10 yrs old, which leaves them useless as a weapon of mass destruction. Especially since they were not weaponized....
They were in artillery shells... To me that seems "weaponized"...
As for degrading.. So now WMDs must be kept up to tip top shape to be considered WMDs? It's ok he had these weapons because their expiration date was past due?
Let me get this straight. You believe Saddam got rid of his chemical, nuclear and biological weapons programs, but he kept the expired stuff?
That makes sense.

I read through a couple of the UN Resolutions tonight. I can't find the paragraph in any of them where they say "expired" WMDs are not subject to the UN ban. Can you link it for me?
 

tarball

Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
They were in artillery shells... To me that seems "weaponized"...
As for degrading.. So now WMDs must be kept up to tip top shape to be considered WMDs? It's ok he had these weapons because their expiration date was past due?
Let me get this straight. You believe Saddam got rid of his chemical, nuclear and biological weapons programs, but he kept the expired stuff?
That makes sense.

I read through a couple of the UN Resolutions tonight. I can't find the paragraph in any of them where they say "expired" WMDs are not subject to the UN ban. Can you link it for me?

Like i said earlier today Iraq was no more a threat to America then Venezuela is today. If Bush challenge Venezuela as a nuclear threat or a chemical, biological threat to our way of life. Would you wholeheartedly support him. If you do, you are no more then a Republican puppet not worthy of an honest opinion.
Like I said, a sarin or Mustard gas shell would not create mass destruction. Could it kill 100s of people yes, But that does not define mass destruction. 1000 pound bomb can cause more destruction then a 10 yrs old sarin shell can in a populated area.
I mean no disrespect, but facts are facts.
& we must put things in perspective.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Tarball
Like i said earlier today Iraq was no more a threat to America then Venezuela is today. If Bush challenge Venezuela as a nuclear threat or a chemical, biological threat to our way of life.
This is your first decent argument today.
The only problem is that no one in the world thinks he has weapons of mass destruction as was thought in Iraq.
he hasn't engaged our military on a regular basis like Iraq did.
He hasn't violated 17 UN sanctions, nor a cease fire agreement with the United States.
And Chavez's rule may be short lived, as he did not get alot of his socialist agenda passed in the last major elections.
-Close Minded Idiot-
You don't need an open mind if you are already Right!
 

tarball

Member
Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
I'm not sure why we took Saddam out...he was such a swell guy.
Stop dragging my comments out of perspective. saddam was a piece of sh*t, but that does not justify our troops death or 100,000 plus Iraqis death.
You're comment is extremely selfish.
 
Top