TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- WMDs?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

WMDs?

Go to this link and look at the second picture and tell me what you see...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/graphi..._fury/flash.htm


Then some commentary from my friend, Mr. Boortz...

quote:

If you use this link [ http://www.usatoday.com/news/graphi..._fury/flash.htm ] to visit the USA Today website you will be treated to a flash presentation of several pictures taken during the siege of Fallujah. Picture number two in this presentation shows 40 vials in boxes labeled "Sarin." That's sarin gas, my friends. One drop of this stuff on your skin can kill you. The boxes have Cyrillic and German characters on them, indicating they may have come from our good friends the Russians or the Germans. The caption under the photo reads "Marines discovered 40 vials of suspected Sarin gas while searching a house in Fallujah, Iraq. It was secreted in a briefcase hidden in a truck in the courtyard of the house." So ... there you go. Weapons of mass destruction. Chemical weapons. This Sarin gas could, with an effective application, kill thousands. And where do they find it? In a briefcase! A briefcase in a car trunk. And you wonder why our troops have had some difficulty finding Saddam's weapons? You still think inspections could have worked? Yeah, sure they would. The inspectors were going to look in every car trunk and every briefcase in Iraq. What you see in that picture is proof that the only way to even come close to neutralizing the threat that Saddam posed was to remove him from power. Nothing else was going to work. Meanwhile ... just watch the critics whistle past this one. If you don't mention the vials of Sarin gas, they just don't exist ... do they?

Its well known that Iraq is a huge weapons bazaar. There are weapons of mass destruction in many countries but you don't see the US invading and occupying those countries.

Say, this wouldn't happen to be the same stuff reported by NPR on Nov. 11th that had to correct themselves into saying it was merely Sarin gas test-kits, would it?:

http://instapundit.com/archives/019171.php

Would you or Boortz happen to have the lowdown on that? What day was this Boortz article posted?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Say, this wouldn't happen to be the same stuff reported by NPR on Nov. 11th that had to correct themselves into saying it was merely Sarin gas test-kits, would it?: http://instapundit.com/archives/019171.php Would you or Boortz happen to have the lowdown on that? What day was this Boortz article posted?

Good question. It was posted today. Since Fallujah fell after the 11th, I'd say it's a more recent development. And the USA Today flash intro if for today as well. Good question though.

Another good question would be, why are there Sarin Gas test kits if there is supposedly no sarin gas to begin with since Iraq "never" had any WMDs?

quote:

Originally posted by Zild Its well known that Iraq is a huge weapons bazaar. There are weapons of mass destruction in many countries but you don't see the US invading and occupying those countries.

I think we have to invade our ourselves. We have nuclear weapons! By saying we felt threatened by Iraq beause they had WMDs and we had to attack them to protect ourselves, even though there was no attack being mounted by them, we essentially used a logic that, if used as a precedent, would justify any other country attacking us. All they'd have to say is they felt thretened. The worst part is we definitely have WMDs, unlike Iraq....hmmm, but now it turns out I made up that reason in my mind and Colin Powell never made a presenttion at the U.N., because we were only trying to liberate the Iraqi people. Let's try to use rational thought during this term please.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Another good question would be, why are there Sarin Gas test kits if there is supposedly no sarin gas to begin with since Iraq "never" had any WMDs?

What? Of course they had WMDs. Tons and tons of biological and chemical weapons were used against the Kurds and Iranians in the late 80s and the stockpiles that were not used by Saddam against his fellow man were either declared and destroyed in 1991 (in the case of chemical weapons) or between 1991 and 1996 (in the case of biological weapons). The ISG report from a month or two ago confirms this.

The issue was never whether he had ever had weapons (afterall, Bush must have known that Iraq had had WMDs at some point because his dad continued to sell WMD materials to Iraq even after they were used on Kurdish and Iranian civilians) just whether he had WMDs (or, more significantly, a WMD stockpile large enough to pose a threat to the most heavily armed nation in the history of the planet) at the time of the invasion. The simple fact of the matter - which is now beyond doubt - is that he didn't.

Also, from the article:

quote:

This Sarin gas could, with an effective application, kill thousands.

Sarin gas released in a crowded, poorly ventilated subway in Japan killed just 11 people. Even if it could be proven that Iraq had large quantities of this weapons at the time of the invasion (which it didn't) the threat shouldn't be overplayed. As with many other biological and chemical weapons, releasing the gas into a crowded city, say, is not going to be terribly effective as it will disperse too quickly. While it's an undeniably nasty chemical, even if Iraq did possess it in large quantities it still wouldn't have posed much of a risk to the United States (especially since Iraq never had any missiles / warheads capable of reaching the continent) and certainly not enough of a threat to justify an invasion - such as the one we've seen - under international law.

In addition to Renegade's sentiments, I'll continue to refer to David Kay's predictions that WMD will likely never be found.

Or, if that makes you too uncomfortable, I suppose you could refer to Charles Duelfer, the most recent chief WMD inspector who stated the likelihood of finding any WMD was less than 5%.

Whichever prediction makes you more comfortable by the guys who actually searched ad nauseum throughout the country, and who have a good understanding of Saddam's WMD capability, that's peachy by me.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 In addition to Renegade's sentiments, I'll continue to refer to David Kay's predictions that WMD will likely never be found. Or, if that makes you too uncomfortable, I suppose you could refer to Charles Duelfer, the most recent chief WMD inspector who stated the likelihood of finding any WMD was less than 5%. Whichever prediction makes you more comfortable by the guys who actually searched ad nauseum throughout the country, and who have a good understanding of Saddam's WMD capability, that's peachy by me.

Well, considering that this batch of supposed Sarin gas was found inside of a briefcase in the trunk of a car, it's not surprising that they're the least bit hard to find. However, it doesn't mean they were never there. I also doubt that Kay and the likes of Duelfer had the backup of a group of marines to give them unfettered access to certain inspection sites.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Well, considering that this batch of supposed Sarin gas was found inside of a briefcase in the trunk of a car, it's not surprising that they're the least bit hard to find. However, it doesn't mean they were never there. I also doubt that Kay and the likes of Duelfer had the backup of a group of marines to give them unfettered access to certain inspection sites.

This sounds extremely similar to the NPR report that I linked above. You'll have to forgive me if I'm just a wee bit skeptical of Neil Boortz and his propensity to be

1. quick with the facts

2. outright lying

3. bombastic ass

http://mediamatters.org/archives/se...opic=&go=Search

As far as I knew, Kay and Duelfer had unlimited access to any and all suspected sites, as well as any sites they deemed suspicious. Of course that doesn't include Fallujah, so I won't be foolish and rule that out just yet. But again their reports were not merely on what they found, but were verifiable judgements on the WMD production capability of Saddam, from which their rulings on the unlikelihood of finding WMD are fairly sound.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 This sounds extremely similar to the NPR report that I linked above. You'll have to forgive me if I'm just a wee bit skeptical of Neil Boortz and his propensity to be 1. quick with the facts 2. outright lying 3. bombastic ass http://mediamatters.org/archives/se...opic=&go=Search

You forgot to mention his annoying voice.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka You forgot to mention his annoying voice.

Nah, Hannity's nasal voice is way worse.

Ah hell, Boortz ain't that bad, just another conservative mouthpiece. Some are better, some are worse.

Now I know nobody forgot that the rationale for the invasion were the massive stockpiles of chemical weapons in addition to the facilities that were constantly pumping out new stockpiles, not to mention the that they were ready to fire in 45 minutes, but let us presume for an instant that this briefcase is indeed sarin gas and therefore lo and behold we found the wmds we were looking for all along ... mission accomplished. Let�s take a step back and use some common sense to rationally look at a cost benefit analysis of the situation:

Cost

$200 billion (Going by CBO estimates of what the war will cost)
1,197 American lives

Benefit

A suitcase of Sarin Gas
Assurances that no new weapons program will be developed in Iraq


I only included benefits pertaining to WMD since every other justification was after the fact, and was not used as a primary justification for invasion prior to the actual invasion. Now as for the cost, I�ll ignore the cost of lives since one cannot so easily assign a value to such a thing, so I�ll only use the actual $ costs. Since $200 billion is a meaningless number to this new breed of spend and spend conservatives in the Bush administration, let�s look at it in a different way that might possibly put things in perspective �

If we look at social welfare expenditures in a year, the total amount spent is approximately $1,505 billion. However, that figure is all social welfare expenditure. If we subtract social insurance (which is not exactly an entitlement since you pay premiums out of every paycheck) and education (since that�s not entirely what we would traditionally consider as an entitlement), the total spending on entitlements such as welfare, hospital medical care, Medicaid, food programs, etc., comes to $434 billion. That figure is actually inflated by several other factors that aren�t necessarily �entitlements� such as medical research, however, let�s stick with that figure. Therefore doing the simple math, the Iraq war is equivalent to a 54% increase in entitlement programs. Can you imagine some democrat trying to pass that in congress? A 54% increase, all for an unlikely suitcase of �sarin� and assurances that Iraq won�t develop WMDs when, coincidentally, it wasn�t making much progress in doing just that under the status quo pre-invasion.

My social welfare expenditure data comes from here by the way:

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/stat...upplement/2000/

Too many people hope they can find WMD's even if its a few vials of sarin, soman and vx.

A little too late for those that believe we are there for a reason.

"...The German government reportedly 'actively encouraged' weapons co-operation and assistance was allegedly given to Iraq in developing poison gas used against Kurds..."

And:

"..The Security Council agreed to US requests to censor 8000 pages -- including sections naming western businesses which aided Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programme."
Sunday Herald - 23 February 2003, Revealed: 17 British firms armed Saddam with his weapons, Investigation: By Neil Mackay Home Affairs Editor


Mr. Boortz is not making an accurate statement by leaving out the two other agents in those vials. Soman and VX.

"..Sarin originally was developed in 1938 in Germany as a pesticide."
CDC: Facts about Sarin


"..Soman was originally developed as an insecticide in Germany in 1944."
CDC: Facts about Soman


"..VX was originally developed in the United Kingdom in the early 1950s."
CDC: Facts about Vx


There is no FRAGILE warning on the vials. If these are what they claim they are why not label them as such. Just more nonsense to scare people again. Might as well bring back Osama and have him say that he's going to attack a Starbucks or something.

regardless of the sarin, those are some cool pictures.

The one where the troops are providing medical assistance to the shot iraqi paints a completely different picture than those that some of the board members are trying to imply

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Now I know nobody forgot that the rationale for the invasion were the massive stockpiles of chemical weapons in addition to the facilities that were constantly pumping out new stockpiles, not to mention the that they were ready to fire in 45 minutes, but let us presume for an instant that this briefcase is indeed sarin gas and therefore lo and behold we found the wmds we were looking for all along ... mission accomplished. Let�s take a step back and use some common sense to rationally look at a cost benefit analysis of the situation: Cost $200 billion (Going by CBO estimates of what the war will cost) 1,197 American lives Benefit A suitcase of Sarin Gas Assurances that no new weapons program will be developed in Iraq I only included benefits pertaining to WMD since every other justification was after the fact, and was not used as a primary justification for invasion prior to the actual invasion. Now as for the cost, I�ll ignore the cost of lives since one cannot so easily assign a value to such a thing, so I�ll only use the actual $ costs. Since $200 billion is a meaningless number to this new breed of spend and spend conservatives in the Bush administration, let�s look at it in a different way that might possibly put things in perspective � If we look at social welfare expenditures in a year, the total amount spent is approximately $1,505 billion. However, that figure is all social welfare expenditure. If we subtract social insurance (which is not exactly an entitlement since you pay premiums out of every paycheck) and education (since that�s not entirely what we would traditionally consider as an entitlement), the total spending on entitlements such as welfare, hospital medical care, Medicaid, food programs, etc., comes to $434 billion. That figure is actually inflated by several other factors that aren�t necessarily �entitlements� such as medical research, however, let�s stick with that figure. Therefore doing the simple math, the Iraq war is equivalent to a 54% increase in entitlement programs. Can you imagine some democrat trying to pass that in congress? A 54% increase, all for an unlikely suitcase of �sarin� and assurances that Iraq won�t develop WMDs when, coincidentally, it wasn�t making much progress in doing just that under the status quo pre-invasion. My social welfare expenditure data comes from here by the way: http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/stat...upplement/2000/

Protecting your children's future....priceless.

Thanks for providing me with that special Mastercard moment, Occrider.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Protecting your children's future....priceless. Thanks for providing me with that special Mastercard moment, Occrider.

Huh? Invading Iraq has made us safer? Protecting them from what exactly? There's a blank check for poorly perceived threats? Ok ... I'm game. I'll use similar poor reasoning ... A major source for crime is poverty. So let's "protect" our children's future from crime by eliminating poverty. Massive entitlement and redistribution of wealth programs. Because protecting our children's future from crime or anything is priceless. Regardless of the abysmal rate of return on our investment.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Huh? Invading Iraq has made us safer? Protecting them from what exactly? There's a blank check for poorly perceived threats? Ok ... I'm game. I'll use similar poor reasoning ... A major source for crime is poverty. So let's "protect" our children's future from crime by eliminating poverty. Massive entitlement and redistribution of wealth programs. Because protecting our children's future from crime or anything is priceless. Regardless of the abysmal rate of return on our investment.

well, if showing the world that Islamic Facism is stupid...then yeah. it is priceless.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo well, if showing the world that Islamic Facism is stupid...then yeah. it is priceless.

Well I'm glad we got such a bargain on what should be common sense . Do you think we'll get a discount on debunking Christianity? Perhaps only 800 American lives and a couple billion more?

The conclusion that onec an draw from the photo that this Sarin is evidence of massive WMD is as equivalent as saying that massive amounts of WMD were stolen by insurgents at the ammo dumps prior to the fall of Baghdad. Its only evidence for those who want to believe.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well I'm glad we got such a bargain on what should be common sense . Do you think we'll get a discount on debunking Christianity? Perhaps only 800 American lives and a couple billion more?

In all seriousness this is a bargin.

Last couple times the USA tried to save the world from self-delusional political facists (cold war, ww2) it ended up costing trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives.

Yea, 1000 and a couple hundred billion is worth the war on terror, but the real price will be much higher. Freedom isn't free. Respect the sacrafises of those who are willing to pay the toll.

If terror wins, the world loses.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well I'm glad we got such a bargain on what should be common sense

common sense? tell that to 1,000,000 Islamic extremist...oh wait! we are!

quote:

Do you think we'll get a discount on debunking Christianity? Perhaps only 800 American lives and a couple billion more?

i know your not stupid enough believe that parallel.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus The conclusion that onec an draw from the photo that this Sarin is evidence of massive WMD is as equivalent as saying that massive amounts of WMD were stolen by insurgents at the ammo dumps prior to the fall of Baghdad. Its only evidence for those who want to believe.

Huh? Except the supporting facts don't support the conclusion. For example, we have proof that the explosives stolen by militants were present at ammo dumps prior to invasion. We have proof that those weapons were present immediately after invasion. We then know that massive looting of those dumps took place after the invasion. Then we subsequentely know that the explosives in question disappeared after this looting. You're trying to equivalate that with the claim that these supposed photos of "sarin" gas are proof of Iraqi WMD stockpiles of chemical weapons? Particularly since scientific tests have established that it was not a weaponized chemical weapons but merely part of a Soviet testing kit?

quote:

In the course of locating seven weapons caches in a single block around a mosque in northeast Fallujah, an Iraqi platoon Wednesday found a suitcase full of vials labeled "Sarin," a deadly nerve agent. While further analysis determined that the find was probably part of a Soviet test kit with samples, its discovery in a room with mortar shells appeared to indicate an intent to weaponize the material. http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1112/p01s02-woiq.html

quote:

In all seriousness this is a bargin. Last couple times the USA tried to save the world from self-delusional political facists (cold war, ww2) it ended up costing trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives. Yea, 1000 and a couple hundred billion is worth the war on terror, but the real price will be much higher. Freedom isn't free. Respect the sacrafises of those who are willing to pay the toll. If terror wins, the world loses.

Comparisons of the war in Iraq to the cold war and ww2 are as retarded as analogies of the bush administration to nazism and 1984. In other words, they have very little in common other than propoganist pipe dreams of associating present day events with symbolic, epic struggles. Why don't you elaborate on exactly how the US is "saving the world" by invading Iraq, meanwhile demonstrating how NOT invading Iraq would thus doom the world from "salvation".

And please don't use buzzwords such as "freedom" or simpleminded cliches if you're directing arguments to me. I'm a skeptic, rational, realpolitik, realist. I thought you were as such as well. It really detracts from your argument when you start bellieving in your own bs.

quote:

common sense? tell that to 1,000,000 Islamic extremist...oh wait! we are!

Yes and we really are educating them in that lesson of common sense!!! And it's SOOOO woth it to educate them about their own stupidity when it accomplishes nothing and when we can instead be spending that money on ourselves!!!!

quote:

i know your not stupid enough believe that parallel.

The parallel was stupid because the item it was parelleling was a bastion of idiocy in and of itself.

Re: WMDs?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Go to this link and look at the second picture and tell me what you see... http://www.usatoday.com/news/graphi..._fury/flash.htm Then some commentary from my friend, Mr. Boortz...

I see what Dick Cheney has been saying for the past two years.



[[[smoke]]]

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Yes and we really are educating them in that lesson of common sense!!! And it's SOOOO woth it to educate them about their own stupidity when it accomplishes nothing and when we can instead be spending that money on ourselves!!!!

recent estimates on the total economic losses due to September 11, 2001 attacks are close to $1 trillion. could you imagine the numbers, lives and otherwise, if the stupid people utilixed the 20 tons of mustard gas found in Lybia?

i'm not saying that the economic losses would be greater than or even equal, but as far as devastation, what price could be paid for something like that? none really. to me, it's not about the money.

do you think it's about money? or just more money?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider You're trying to equivalate that with the claim that these supposed photos of "sarin" gas are proof of Iraqi WMD stockpiles of chemical weapons? ?

Yes, both lie in a problem with quantity.

Sure a couple ounces of weaponized serin were found (so what if it was for a test-kit.. it could have been used as a weapon (? )

Same as saying the terrorist stole all the WMD at the ammo depot because they might have stole one or two tons.

We don't know they were terrorist who stole them, we don't know how much, we don't know when, we don't know for what purpose, etc...

These scenarios are comparable IMO as the numbers proving a point simply don't add up. two ounces of serin don't equal WMD. Just like missing WMD and the fact that there are looters in Iraq doesn't equal the fact that terrorist stole them.

quote:

Comparisons of the war in Iraq to the cold war and ww2 are as retarded as analogies of the bush administration to nazism and 1984.

Why?

quote:

Why don't you elaborate on exactly how the US is "saving the world" by invading Iraq, meanwhile demonstrating how NOT invading Iraq would thus doom the world from "salvation".

Look I am not going to elaborate on how the US is "Saving the world" by invading Iraq or the war on terror. If you don't get it by now, nothing I can do will help you understand this, all we will do is argue endlessly amongst ourselves on this.

So I'll make it simple. This is a global war against a global evil. This global war, just like WW2 and the cold war is being led by the USA and is being faught on multiple battlefields (just like some disagreed that Vietnam played any role in the fight to win the Cold War, some argue that the battlefield of Iraq plays no role in the war on terror.. as you are alluding too. Regardless the war on terror is an equivalent of the cold war as it is a war against an ideology and is conducted in many places in many ways, not always hot).

Now if you look at the total cost of the war on terror so far, of which Iraq is part of (even if you disagree that it contributes to the success, would you argue that Vietnam, or Iran/Iraq, or Panama, or Latin American covert-ops were not part of the cold war?) it pales in comparison to the historic cost of waging such global wars.

Yes, technology has made magnificent strides in the past 10-15 years since the end of the cold war. But if we were to tally up the cost of winning the cold war, from North Korea, to Afghanistan, the Iran/Iraq wars, and the fall of the Berlin wall, you are talking about trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives.

This all happened in less than a timespace of 2 generations. I am just shocked at how people are shocked about the cost of waging war. War is not cheap to wage, and therefore people do not chose to do so on the slightest whim (unless they are loonies). Since the First Gulf War there has been some wars are bloodless syndrome where by if 10 servicemen say get killed in a Somolian city all hell goes into a handbasket.

Granted technology gives us many advantages in reducing the cost of waging war... but it seems that people want it to create completely bloodless wars... Is is not enough that in less than 80 years, wars have changed from having casualties of millions, then to hundreds of thousands, then to tens of thousands, and now when numbers reach near just 1000 people go into shock. AND THEN not only does technology reduce casualties of war by a factor of a 100 BUT people complain that IT COST TO MUCH! WELL BOO FUCKING WHOO. What do you want 5000 to have died instead of 1000? If none of them had humvees, armor, and rifles since the 40s I'm sure we could have saved billions on this war...

What always surpises me about this is that the same people that are in shock of the current casualties primarly in Iraq today, were prior to the initation of hostilites predicting massive casualtie counts of 3,000 - 15,000 during invasion.

Invasion was easy, occupation is a bit more challenging. But its not as challenging as harsh critics believed invasion would be....

quote:

And please don't use buzzwords such as "freedom" or simpleminded cliches if you're directing arguments to me. I'm a skeptic, rational, realpolitik, realist. I thought you were as such as well. It really detracts from your argument when you start bellieving in your own bs.

So freedom is BS to you?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.