Does this mean that Bush was right about Weapons of Mass Destruction?
I would say, “yes, absolutely” especially with the comments of the Iraqi scientists backing it up.
No matter what is found, it will never please the “left”.
It’s still too early to say…He said he believed that insurgents who rigged the artillery shell as a bomb didn't know it contained the nerve agent, and that the dispersal of the nerve agent from such a rigged device was very limited.
The shell had no markings. It appears the binary sarin agents didn’t mix, which is why there weren’t serious injuries from the initial explosion, a U.S. official told Fox News.
It could be a random leftover or something imported in. And yes, of course, it could be that there is a warehouse sitting somewhere full of this shit.
However, we’ll have to wait and see what it means. Everybody already knew that Iraq had this stuff in the past. This isn’t “the find” at this point.
Hey, I found a bottle of pine sol recently.
The WMD is so moot its ridiculous. Stop looking at some isolated incident like its some big deal. Go search some military arms site and you will find mustard gas. So what. Saddam openly used chemical weapons in the Iran/Iraq war. That doesn’t mean the US was in immenent danger. What a crock of shit.
It is moot, unfortunately.
But finding a few shells does not WMD make. Everybody knew that piece of shit Saddam mustard gassed his own people, and that they were heavily used in the wars w/ Iran.
BTW when is Saddam’s trial?
Are you really getting all fired up over a SUSPECTED artillery shell!
No matter what is never found the Bush regime supporters will never be satisfied!
It’s leftover shit from the early 90s. By this time the gas is probably inert. Read the article carefully.
There are hundreds of munitions dumps in Iraq that still remain unguarded, because we went in there with too few troops. That’s probably where the insurgents are getting the shells from.
What shells? There were no shells. No WMDs. Remember every other post you’ve ever written on T-mag? Now it’s our fault that Saddam hadn’t destroyed them?
Lumpy-All that was asked for was evidence that these weapons had been destroyed if they indeed had been. They could not provide that evidence. We knew they had them in 98. The couldnt show how or where with sufficient evidence that they had destroyed these weapons.
As far as whether or not Iraq was an imminent threat, these actions were taken so that they didnt not become an imminent threat. once they become imminent it is too late. If we had went into afghanistan and destroyed Al Qaeda before 9/11, all the libs would have gone nuts. You cant win in this situation with these people.
This story was leaked by the White House, it was supposed to be classified.
Republicans are hoping like hell that someone in Iraq will actually use a WMD so that the White House can be “right”.
Its one shell, thats hardly an aresnal. Its been 14 months now and I think its pretty apparent that we aren’t going to see any huge stockpiles of WMD’s like the Bush administration told us Iraq had.
But if they dig up a thousand shells with sarin in them tomorrow, I’ll be happy to eat my words.
“What shells? There were no shells. No WMDs. Remember every other post you’ve ever written on T-mag?”
A standard bombshell is not a WMD, genius. They were allowed to have guns and bombs and other conventional weapons.
There were 550 of those shells unaccounted for. A couple of liters of Sarin each=WMD.
When would they have become an immenent threat? 30 years from now? At what point is it ok to kill your neighbors because you think they are stockpiling something dangerous?
Oh wait, your neighbors own guns. I think a pre-emptive strike is in order here. Its in our best interest to kill them off because at some point in time they might come after us.
I have to remind people (you know who you are) about some of your recent comments. Al Gore called Bush a liar, and I believe he used the word “traitor.” I’ve seen many Democrats on this forum saying “Bush lied to us about WMD.” There has been some very unfortunate language used by Democrats up and down the spectrum.
We have already found banned weapons. Does today surprise anyone? Why are some of you trying to make some sort of distinction between “imminent” and “non-imminent.” You might as well save your breath. It only takes one vial flown from Baghdad, Tripoli, etc… to an American, British, French, German, Spanish, Canadian, Jordanian, city. As long as terrorists can get their hands on them, THE THREAT IS IMMINENT. What about this concept has people confused?
I’m trully sorry guys, but it makes no sense for Saddam to have kicked the U.N.'s inspectors out of Iraq (for trying to inspect banned weapons) only to subsequently destroy all of his weapons (without one bit of documentation). To you guys who deny the existence (even after the things we have found in Iraq already) of WMD: Are you kidding me?
I’m confused by the people who say, “If we don’t attack Syria, Iran, North Korea right now, then we shouldn’t have attacked Iraq.” These are the same people who, had we attacked Syria, would be saying, “How could you leave a brutal dictator in power who gassed his neighbors, invaded his neighbors, gassed his own people, and tried to assassinate the American President.” It is nonsense.
I simply cannot understand how so many Democrats could vote to authorize force, and then, when the bill comes due, they try to run against it. They make comments like John Kerry saying, “I first voted for the $74 million dollar reconstruction bill, before I voted against it.”
I am trully confused by this. Could someone please clarify how this is in any way an acceptable policy? It’s like saying, “OK, blow shit up, but don’t clean it up because it costs too much.” Is that the reputation you want the United States to have?
If you guys could add one more answer to my questions it would be this: “If you don’t believe we should have attacked Iraq, please give me a better plan.”
Sorry, but some of your arguments leave me scratching my head,
This is almost exciting enough to distract me from the prisoner abuse scandal…
after the invasion, america and britain sent in their own inspectors in iraq, in hope to find the WMDs that the UN didnt find, those same WMDs they went to war for. in a report from this american-british inspectors commition, they said that iraq’s programs for wmd were dormant, that they stoped or were not capable to restart their program after the first gulf war. they found old rockets and war heads that could not be used for war, but were sceduled for distruction. in other words, they didnt find anything. NOT A SINGLE THING.
now some iraqi insurgents rigged a grenade they found somewhere, probably stole it from some destruction depot when iraq got destroyed, so they thought “hey lets make this into a mine”. so they rigged it, and then they expected boom, but no boom, only some gas that didnt work.
so it doesnt mean anything. im preety sure that since american and british experts didnt find anything, there was nothing there.
Its because the rationale would suggest that its pointless to be in Iraq unless we decide to invade Syria or Jordan. They’ve probably got WMD right? If so, then they need to be invaded. North Korea is testing missile delivery systems. Why aren’t we attacking them right now? Iraq is such a joke its almost not funny. It was personal and this president of ours was looking for excuses to attack Iraq since day #1. Why is it the only poeple who like Bush in this ENTIRE WORLD are the 40% of rednecks in this country?