Dixie, are you delusional, a liar, or just wrong?

-David Kay: No WMD in Iraq
-Charles Duelfer: No WMD in Iraq
-President Bush: No WMD in Iraq
-Dick Cheney: No WMD in Iraq
-Don Rumsfeld: No WMD in Iraq
-Condi Rice: No WMD in Iraq
-Colin Powell: No WMD in Iraq
 
Yet, you have already admitted there were WMD's in Iraq, you are arguing about the potentcy of the weapons! Isn't it amazing how absolutely wrong all those people were?
 
If they are not capable of mass distruction, how can they be Weapons of Mass Distruction?
 
Jarod said:
If they are not capable of mass distruction, how can they be Weapons of Mass Distruction?
Click to expand...
Exactly my question. Were they even capable of it when they were at full potency? In order to use these weapons to kill as many Khurds as they did with them it took thousands of runs by planes. Could it be possible that the effeciency of Sarin gas is overrated?
 
Dixie said:
DEGRADED... Did you skip that word or do you just not understand it?

I know what you posted....

I said the administration "Admited there are no WMD."

Well, there were WMD's, as the report I posted indicates. Now, instead of admitting that you were wrong about there not being any WMD's in Iraq, you want to change the argument to the condition of the WMD's, and that wasn't the argument you made. Sarin has a shelf-life of about 6 months, so in order to find non-degraded WMD's, Saddam would have to be producing them from his jail cell. The argument wasn't whether Iraq had new WMD's, it was whether they had WMD's period. Saddam claimed they were destroyed, you carried his water and lamented this lie, and you've both been proven to be liars about the WMD's.
Click to expand...


Idiot. A 155mm artillery round is not a wmd.
 
Apperantly Degraded munitions that were burried for 20 years and forgotten in the Iraq dessart are WMD...
 
Jarod said:
Im sticking with delusional on this issue!
Click to expand...

That's a good choice for you, although I would pick "retarded" to describe your position. It is pretty dillusional to think you've won a debate without presenting any tangible facts to support your position, but it's flat out retarted to be arguing that Sarin bombs aren't WMD's.
 
what evidence do we need beyond the statements of Kay, Duelfer, and Bush himself that there WERE NO WMD's... and the fact that 20 year old rusty cannisters that used to contain sarin are not weapons of mass destruction? I think that pretty well blows holes in your idiotic claims.

Similarly, the turn I flushed down the shitter this morning isn't a filet mignon..... but it used to be.
 
Write/Alpha/Bravo:

Kudos to you for saying Dixie is full of shit for calling these 20-year old artillery shells WMD.

Your credibility went up a notch in my eyes. No conservatives are even bothering to defend Dixie's ridiculous spin. Kudos to you.
 
Dixie said:
That's a good choice for you, although I would pick "retarded" to describe your position. It is pretty dillusional to think you've won a debate without presenting any tangible facts to support your position, but it's flat out retarted to be arguing that Sarin bombs aren't WMD's.
Click to expand...

The nation's foremost experts on Iraq WMD - Charles Duelfer and David Kay - say the 20-year old chemical shells aren't WMD.
 
Cypress said:
The nation's foremost experts on Iraq WMD - Charles Duelfer and David Kay - say the 20-year old chemical shells aren't WMD.
Click to expand...


I keep hearing this repeated, haven't seen it proven that either man actually said it, and regardless, the CWC doesn't stipulate anything about independent weapons inspectors determining what meets the criteria of a WMD. So, what we have is, Dixie, presenting evidence from the Chemical Weapons Convention, the UN, the Geneva Conventions, the US Military, and the Department of Defense, against two pinheads interpretation of Duelfer and Kay's opinion, which they haven't even bothered to post.
 
-Cypress: The nation's foremost experts on Iraq WMD - Charles Duelfer and David Kay - say the 20-year old chemical shells aren't WMD.

-Dixie: “I keep hearing this repeated, haven't seen it proven that either man actually said it…”

Then you must be blind, because I posted this at least five times:


Charles Duelfer, June 22 2006: ..."the ones which have been found are left over from the Iran-Iraq war. They are almost 20 years old, and they are in a decayed fashion. It is very interesting that there are so many that were unaccounted for, but they do not constitute a weapon of mass destruction, although they could be a local hazard."



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5504298
 
A weapon is defined as one of Massive Destruction because of what it is capable of doing....

It is clear that the capability of a weapon can change over time, thus it being a WMD or not can change also. Why is this so hard for the Cons to understand?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top