View Full Version : Tip of WMD Iceburg.
Scrubking
05-21-2004, 02:30 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
Since the usual bashers aren't going to bring it up I guess I have to, but then again they will just say that it magically appeared there somehow or that the US put it there themselves. :roll:
Kimmitt said the shell belonged to a class of ordnance that Saddam's government said was destroyed before the 1991 Gulf war (search). Experts believe both the sarin and mustard gas weapons date back to that time.
So its 13 years old. Tt's not recent. It means his daddy did a bad fucking job in the original war.
ZarathosNY
05-21-2004, 02:38 PM
Fox news is not exactly the best place for accurate for news. They left out the quotes from Rumdfeld saying that it's not positive, and that the field tests tend to create false positives to err on the side of caution. The testing is not finsihed yet. I would not be suprised if it turned out to be nothing.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808/
PsyClerk
05-21-2004, 02:54 PM
So its 13 years old. Tt's not recent. It means his daddy did a bad shaq-fuing job in the original war.
Actually, the original war (if you can call it a war) was to oust Saddam from Kuwait. It was also backed by the UN, but hey, it involved a guy named Bush, so it must be completely wrong and evil.
Lo Wang says "Burn-a baby burn-a, flames a-getta higher!"
ZarathosNY
05-21-2004, 03:06 PM
Well, Sadaam invaded Kuwait because our embassador to Iraq told Hussein that the US will not get involved in Middle East border conflicts. He was right to kick Saddam out of Kuwait, and not to go into Iraq. He wrote a paper explaing why he didn't go into Iraq, basically outlining all of the problems we are encountering now.
suprsaiyanMAX
05-21-2004, 03:19 PM
Fox news is not exactly the best place for accurate for news. They left out the quotes from Rumdfeld saying that it's not positive, and that the field tests tend to create false positives to err on the side of caution. The testing is not finsihed yet. I would not be suprised if it turned out to be nothing.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808/
" However, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the results were from a field test, which can be imperfect, and said more analysis was needed."
No they didn't, before you comment on something you should actually read it.
Grave_Addiction
05-21-2004, 03:24 PM
Kimmitt said the shell belonged to a class of ordnance that Saddam's government said was destroyed before the 1991 Gulf war (search). Experts believe both the sarin and mustard gas weapons date back to that time.
So its 13 years old. Tt's not recent. It means his daddy did a bad shaq-fuing job in the original war.
A 13 year-old bomb or missile is not old. America's Minuteman III ICBMs are more than 40 years old and they will work perfectly. In case you don't know, the Minuteman IIIs are capable of containing three nuclear warheads that can individually target a separate location. I have seen one of these launch off the coast of California. Very impressive.
But I can neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons. :D
MrBadExample
05-21-2004, 03:34 PM
13 year-old missiles may not be old, but chemical weapons deteriorate faster than nuclear ones, especially if they are not stored properly (which I heard was the case here). Also one of the reports mentioned that whoever planted the bomb probably didn't know what they had because it wasn't rigged to detonate effectively for chemical dispersion.
Right now, this doesn't convince me about Iraq'a WMD. The line we were leading up to the invasion made it sound like they were cranking out chemical and nuclear weapons daily. This appears to be small-time terrorists using whatever they can find as a weapon.
I'm glad no one was seriously hurt.
Grave_Addiction
05-21-2004, 03:36 PM
13 year-old missiles may not be old, but chemical weapons deteriorate faster than nuclear ones, especially if they are not stored properly (which I heard was the case here). Also one of the reports mentioned that whoever planted the bomb probably didn't know what they had because it wasn't rigged to detonate effectively for chemical dispersion.
Right now, this doesn't convince me about Iraq'a WMD. The line we were leading up to the invasion made it sound like they were cranking out chemical and nuclear weapons daily. This appears to be small-time terrorists using whatever they can find as a weapon.
I'm glad no one was seriously hurt.
Dude, not to sound mean at all, but the nose on your avatar looks like a penis and two balls.
PsyClerk
05-21-2004, 03:37 PM
Holy shit he's right.
MrBadExample
05-21-2004, 03:46 PM
Well I'm glad the debate has been raised to a new level.
ZarathosNY
05-21-2004, 03:54 PM
Fox news is not exactly the best place for accurate for news. They left out the quotes from Rumdfeld saying that it's not positive, and that the field tests tend to create false positives to err on the side of caution. The testing is not finsihed yet. I would not be suprised if it turned out to be nothing.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808/
" However, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the results were from a field test, which can be imperfect, and said more analysis was needed."
No they didn't, before you comment on something you should actually read it.
I did read it, and as I said, the testing is not finished yet, which is what you quoted.
suprsaiyanMAX
05-21-2004, 04:01 PM
Yes, but you said they weren't accurate because they left out those quotes, yet they didn't, those quotes are there. While Fox News may not be the best, you shouldn't discredit a source by saying they didn't do something when they clearly did.
alongx
05-21-2004, 04:02 PM
13 year-old missiles may not be old, but chemical weapons deteriorate faster than nuclear ones, especially if they are not stored properly (which I heard was the case here). Also one of the reports mentioned that whoever planted the bomb probably didn't know what they had because it wasn't rigged to detonate effectively for chemical dispersion.
Right now, this doesn't convince me about Iraq'a WMD. The line we were leading up to the invasion made it sound like they were cranking out chemical and nuclear weapons daily. This appears to be small-time terrorists using whatever they can find as a weapon.
I'm glad no one was seriously hurt.
Well put.
If this was truly a WMD, I agree, it would have been built for maximum dispersion and probably held much more sarin gas.
I also agree with a point previously made that FoxNews isn't exactly the most accurate news source - they are about as right-wing as they come. Not to say that they were entirely wrong, but I can't imagine that a former Iraqi military leader would tell us to expect to find a lot more chemical weapons in the future while the two people who performed the weapons inspection said it was a fluke.
Steggy
05-21-2004, 04:10 PM
13 year-old missiles may not be old, but chemical weapons deteriorate faster than nuclear ones, especially if they are not stored properly (which I heard was the case here). Also one of the reports mentioned that whoever planted the bomb probably didn't know what they had because it wasn't rigged to detonate effectively for chemical dispersion.
Right now, this doesn't convince me about Iraq'a WMD. The line we were leading up to the invasion made it sound like they were cranking out chemical and nuclear weapons daily. This appears to be small-time terrorists using whatever they can find as a weapon.
I'm glad no one was seriously hurt.
Dude, not to sound mean at all, but the nose on your avatar looks like a penis and two balls.
Holy Shit! I never noticed that. Thats fucking hillarious.