Henry Bowman
Senior Member
Sounds like a story plot from Batman. 
These aren't the WMD you were looking for......
- Thread starter hillbilly
- Start date
- Status
"Just because they're from 91 doesn't mean that they're any less dangerous"
...yes it does. Sarin is extremely unstable, and top quality stuff will reach less than 50% purity within a few months.
The metabolites are definately toxic, don't get me wrong, but they cease to be sarin.
And the Fox article about the perfume bottles is just ridiculous. OK, you take your sarin, you put it in a perfume bottle. You're going to kill the person who gets directly sprayed with it, everyone else is just going to get sick unless they're particularly unwell to begin with.
The Tokyo subway attack is a prime example of why this is complete and utter bull. They used FAR more sarin than you could release in a couple sprays of a perfume bottle, and only a handful of people died. The rest got very ill.
...yes it does. Sarin is extremely unstable, and top quality stuff will reach less than 50% purity within a few months.
The metabolites are definately toxic, don't get me wrong, but they cease to be sarin.
And the Fox article about the perfume bottles is just ridiculous. OK, you take your sarin, you put it in a perfume bottle. You're going to kill the person who gets directly sprayed with it, everyone else is just going to get sick unless they're particularly unwell to begin with.
The Tokyo subway attack is a prime example of why this is complete and utter bull. They used FAR more sarin than you could release in a couple sprays of a perfume bottle, and only a handful of people died. The rest got very ill.
Sen. Santorum & Rep. Hoekstra went through the proper chain of command to have some intelligence declassified ( a very uncommon activity in and of its self for Congress these days) then put the information in the public arena.
The "Bush Lied" crowd acts like Santorum & Hoekstra have attacked them.
Yes,these old pre 91 WMD's.
So when Saddam ignored those 17 UN resolutions and said "I have no WMD" he lied, thats all this means nothing more, nothing less.
The "Bush Lied" crowd acts like Santorum & Hoekstra have attacked them.
Yes,these old pre 91 WMD's.
So when Saddam ignored those 17 UN resolutions and said "I have no WMD" he lied, thats all this means nothing more, nothing less.
Ah......the Monday morning quarterbacks.....
are back in the game................tell you what, I will take a 55 gallon drum, paint WMD on the side and hide it somewhere in the county, not state, where you live. You tell me how long it will take you to find it........Iraq is about the size of California..........................chris3
are back in the game................tell you what, I will take a 55 gallon drum, paint WMD on the side and hide it somewhere in the county, not state, where you live. You tell me how long it will take you to find it........Iraq is about the size of California..........................chris3
Working Man
Member
It is not just about killing people it is about fear and disruption. The object is
to create a condition of panic, to make the general population feel unsafe and
paranoid.
It would be like Batman.... for a time people would be afraid to buy products and
wonder what will be targeted next.
Not saying that was going to happen but it would be effective terrorism.
MrTuffPaws
Member
I love all of the armchair scientist in this thread.
The freaking pentagon stated
What is to argue about? He had usable stocks before 91. He did not have usable stocks when when we went in a second time.
The freaking pentagon stated
What is to argue about? He had usable stocks before 91. He did not have usable stocks when when we went in a second time.
GTSteve03
Member
No, and it's the same reason I don't think we should have invaded Iraq. Just because you're harboring terrorists doesn't give someone the right to invade a sovereign nation.
But apparently all the Bush-bots are 100% behind this strategery so why don't they seem to be having a problem with us not invading Pakistan?
Mongo the Mutterer
Member
Sorry Steve, putting marshmallows in their cocoa is NOT the job of our military.GTSteve03 said:
And AFAIK the Taliban has been essentially destroyed. They are not running the government of Afganistan. There may be a few of the BGs around, but the situation over there hasn't deteriorated or the Socialist Mainstream Media would be all over it. (and Murtha would want a pull out to Guam!)
GTSteve03
Member
Oh, you're one of those "glass parking lot" guys. Sure, that works just hunky-dory when your military is turned into an occupational force. NOT.
If this is the case then why is the US military conducting the largest operation in Afghanistan since 2001 to clear out a resurgence of Taliban troops?
http://www.gulfnews.com/opinion/columns/world/10048548.html
B Easy
B Easy, and your credentials to tell us about the degradation of Sarin gas is...?
Hardly. It is a true story, I saw the footage of the Sarin plant and the bottles in it. Perhaps the Iraqi plan was hair brained......but the intention to do harm in the west is there. As pointed out in the article the other goal was to cause economic chaos... Who will shop in a mall if such dangers exist? Terrorism is not always about killing but creating fear will sometimes suffice.
It has paid off for them in the past when gutless libs ran the country and did nothing after the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, or the attack on the USS Cole, the attack on our embassy in Kenya or the attack on Khobar Towers....or can be driven out of Somalia because so many people were bothered to see the body of a US service man dragged in the streets......you don't cut and run when that happens......You kick the every living stuffing out of them to show them what happens when you attack the United States.
B Easy, and your credentials to tell us about the degradation of Sarin gas is...?
Hardly. It is a true story, I saw the footage of the Sarin plant and the bottles in it. Perhaps the Iraqi plan was hair brained......but the intention to do harm in the west is there. As pointed out in the article the other goal was to cause economic chaos... Who will shop in a mall if such dangers exist? Terrorism is not always about killing but creating fear will sometimes suffice.
It has paid off for them in the past when gutless libs ran the country and did nothing after the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, or the attack on the USS Cole, the attack on our embassy in Kenya or the attack on Khobar Towers....or can be driven out of Somalia because so many people were bothered to see the body of a US service man dragged in the streets......you don't cut and run when that happens......You kick the every living stuffing out of them to show them what happens when you attack the United States.
Mongo the Mutterer
Member
Nope no glass parking lots...
But no worrying about "feelings" either.
Read your reference article -- an opinion piece by a LA Times WaPo columnist? Wow, there is some proof....
And if you bother to read your own proof you will see:
The rest of the citations are either nameless or out of work bureaucrats.
But no worrying about "feelings" either.
Read your reference article -- an opinion piece by a LA Times WaPo columnist? Wow, there is some proof....
And if you bother to read your own proof you will see:
The rest of the citations are either nameless or out of work bureaucrats.
This would be very profound...if the Civil War had been fought over slavery. That is a common misconception...but the war was fought over contention on the issue of federal government authority vs. state autonomy. And according to that old, tired, insignificant document called the Constitution of the United States, the South was right in claiming that the states--and never the federal government--had the sole authority to regulate all matters not specifically delegated to the feds by the same document, of which slavery just happened to be one. Ah, but who cares about that tired old thing anymore...
GTSteve03
Member
This being the same "state" that the US has been propping up militarily, much like in Iraq. And yet after 5 years it's still considered "very weak" even by the top US commanders.
That doesn't seem like a good plan towards victory to me.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124924,00.html
They're just two of the incidents where things were used or found. I've seen a bunch of other claims of chemical/nerve attacks but they were all on right wing propaghanda websites so I won't bother trying to track them down again. FOX is conservative enough for me, lol.
From what the History Channel said, a few barely punctured their packets, and the strategy lacked in dispersion ability. Only Hayashi stabbed it a lot. He killed 8 people. So it is a very deadly chemical when used "right".
Afghanistan has been difficult for anyone who has tried to impose a centralized government especially when linked to a foreign power. It will take quite some time to break them and get them to submit to any centralized government....no matter how benevolent. However to leave and allow the Taliban or any other unfriendly group assume power in Kabul is unacceptable.
TallPine
Member
Are these the same WMD's that the US supplied to Saddam back when he was our "friend"
GTSteve03
Member
If it's so hard to impose a centralized gov't, why would the Taliban have such an easy time with it? Maybe they don't want to be governed by a foreign power?
If we're going to end up having to "break them and get them to submit," that's a very odd definition of "freedom" that's on the march.
longrifleman
Member
Since nobody has managed to accomplish this in recorded history, what makes you think WE can do it? And, other than having someone to bomb if they don't do what we want, why do we care about imposing a central govt on anyone? If bad guys are basing attacks on us from there, do something about it, govt or no govt. Otherwise, leave them alone.
And another thing, what makes you think ANY centralized govt is going to be benevolent, especially in that part of the world?
longrifleman
Member
OK. It's not.
I'm not a big fan of strong centralized govt anywhere. I also think strong centralized govts tend to be enemies of freedom, instead of protectors of same.
My understanding is that the "country" of Afghanistan is pretty much an artifical creation, and the true nature is at best a confederation of different tribes/ethnic groups. Western diplomats can't deal with that kind of complexity, so they try to beat the different groups into a one size fits all nation-state. If some of that beating involves the application of high explosives, well, sucks to be an Afghan that day.
leadcounsel
member
+1
Let's believe an evil dictator who has demonstrated his willingness to murder his own people with WMDs, start wars with his neighbors Iraq and Kuwait, sign treaties with the world after losing a war and then break his promises over a 10 year period, promise to not have WMDs and be found to have had them....
OR
We can believe 99% of the ELECTED officials (Dems and Reps) who looked at the intelligence and came to the same conclusion- the same conclusion most of the world intelligence came to; Saddam had WMDs and was a threat.
Now we have 500 examples of the WMDs he had and it took us many years to find them. I'm confident there are more hidden or shipped elsewhere.
MCgunner
Member
Yeah, but perjury is okay as long as it's about sex.
And then there was, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman....."
And then there was, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman....."
longrifleman
Member
Yes, but a threat to who? There is the disagreement. Can you show that Iraq had any capability to carry out an attack on the US? If he was stupid enough to try, the entire country would have been a parking lot, and he knew it.
Master Blaster
Member
The bottom line is that a majority of the Democrats voted to give Bush authority to invade Iraq. They saw the same intellegence as everybody else, and the same reports from the UN inspectors. After 911 they made the decision to be proactive. Now they want to abdicate all responsibility for their decision, and cut and run. That will Give Iran control of the oil and of Iraq, and who knows maybe Saudi Arabia eventually. Heck if we wait long enough Iran will have a Nuke and we will have to fight them over the oil we NEED. Does that sound like a plan you want implemented???
Now that we have been there 3 years the Democrats want to pretend that they did not make informed decisions because they were fooled BY BUSH.
BUSH the dumb guy fooled them. So in the run up to the fall elections do YOU really want to be represented by people who say that they were fooled by Bush???? Do you really want to hand the ME and the oil fields to Iran and the Islaamofacists who want to destroy us???
Now that we have been there 3 years the Democrats want to pretend that they did not make informed decisions because they were fooled BY BUSH.
BUSH the dumb guy fooled them. So in the run up to the fall elections do YOU really want to be represented by people who say that they were fooled by Bush???? Do you really want to hand the ME and the oil fields to Iran and the Islaamofacists who want to destroy us???
- Status
