Dixie finally admits Saddam did not have WMD when we invaded!

even if Saddam had given the sarin cannisters to Al Qaeda in some weird suicide move, they would not have been able to use them to cause massive destruction. That is, in the final analysis, what makes a WMD a WMD - not some legalese definition, but the ability to cause massive destruction. That sarin was not capable of that. sorry.
 
maineman said:
even if Saddam had given the sarin cannisters to Al Qaeda in some weird suicide move, they would not have been able to use them to cause massive destruction. That is, in the final analysis, what makes a WMD a WMD - not some legalese definition, but the ability to cause massive destruction. That sarin was not capable of that. sorry.
Click to expand...

Oh, I have already agreed, they were degraded and ineffective. I've also pointed out, unless Saddam was idiotically trying to make WMD's while the UNSCOM team was scouring the country, any Sarin bombs he had, were out-dated. They have a relatively short shelf-life.


In the final analysis, a Sarin bomb that was produced to be a WMD, is a WMD until it is destroyed, and then it's a destroyed WMD. The Army Field Manual has specific guidelines for handling these WMD's, they certainly do not consider them anything other than WMD's. There is no arbitrary point at which a WMD changes to something else, it's potency is directly related to the purity of the precursors, storage conditions, contamination elements, temprature and humidity, and how well they are sealed. So, there is really no way to tell if a WMD is capable of its full potential, and there is also no outward difference in apperance, between a conventional Sarin bomb, and a 'binary' Sarin bomb. Keep in mind, the binary process Saddam's scientists pioneered, greatly extends the normal shelf-life, by keeping the super-pure precursors separated until detonation.

When we use the term "weapon of mass destruction" it has several meanings. The layman's meaning is the one you wish to apply, it must be a weapon capable of creating mass destruction. However, a weapon is an inanimate object, it is not capable of anything on its own. This brings in the CWC, a convention formed by the UN to determine what exactly constitutes a "WMD". They are fairly clear about it, Sarin bombs, regardless of their age or potency, are considered WMD's.

The issue of potency is not part of the debate here. Saddam had told the UN inspectors, he destroyed these Sarin bombs. That is the issue. He lied. We will probably never know what all he lied to us about, or whether he had a viable WMD program at the time Bush gave his Axis speech, but we do know one thing for certain now... Saddam doesn't have WMD's! He's not a threat anymore! We no longer have to be uncertain, we no longer have to rely on intelligence information, we have changed our doubts into absolute certainty.
 
Dixie said:
Okay this is simple. If those 500 Sarin munitions found burried in the Dessart are WMD, how does it appear that Iraq did not have WMD at the time we invaded?

When I made the statement you are so hung up on, I expalined it. The 500 Sarin bombs ARE indeed WMD's... they weren't NEW WMD's. It appears Saddam didn't have stockpiles of NEW WMD's. There! Is that better?
Click to expand...

So were you wrong when you said... "...it doesn't appear he had WMD at the time we invaded."?

Because if you want to change it NOW, once Ive pointed our your hypocracy, okay Ill let you.

Take back what you said and replace it with...

"...Saddam did not have any NEW WMD...". HAHAHAHA.....

The Jester strikes again!
 
Dixie said:
Yeah Jarhead, you're right, I should realize you are too retarded to comprehend my simple points. I apologize, I will try harder to talk down to your level.
Click to expand...

1) When you state something in plain language I assume it means what you said, not something different.

2) I belive you were shown to be wrong and have had to change what you said in a pittafull attempt to try to regain some scantilla of respect!
 
1) When you state something in plain language I assume it means what you said, not something different.

Damn... well, I guess I will have to start using unconventional language instead of plain! Maybe I need to be a little more anal about what I post, and explain the context of every single word I use, but it might get a little long-winded and confusing to follow. Most non-retarded people can distinguish proper context, and don't have your mental deficiency, so I think I will have to keep using the plain language, and just hope that you can learn some level of complex thought and context. How's this... if you are ever confused by my plain language, you let me know, and I will clarify the context for you! Just don't do as you normally do, and try to argue with me about what I said. I am a far better judge of what I mean, than you are.

2) I belive you were shown to be wrong and have had to change what you said in a pittafull attempt to try to regain some scantilla of respect!

I believe you were shown to be wrong, regarding admissible evidence in sexual harassment cases, and you are supposedly a lawyer. It's impossible to regain a 'scantilla' (or any other pinhead unit of measure) of respect, after that kind of schooling. So, you are reduced to calling me names and making up shit. I understand, it must be difficult to deal with, being embarrassed like that.
 
Dixie said:
1) When you state something in plain language I assume it means what you said, not something different.

Damn... well, I guess I will have to start using unconventional language instead of plain! Maybe I need to be a little more anal about what I post, and explain the context of every single word I use, but it might get a little long-winded and confusing to follow. Most non-retarded people can distinguish proper context, and don't have your mental deficiency, so I think I will have to keep using the plain language, and just hope that you can learn some level of complex thought and context. How's this... if you are ever confused by my plain language, you let me know, and I will clarify the context for you! Just don't do as you normally do, and try to argue with me about what I said. I am a far better judge of what I mean, than you are.

2) I belive you were shown to be wrong and have had to change what you said in a pittafull attempt to try to regain some scantilla of respect!

I believe you were shown to be wrong, regarding admissible evidence in sexual harassment cases, and you are supposedly a lawyer. It's impossible to regain a 'scantilla' (or any other pinhead unit of measure) of respect, after that kind of schooling. So, you are reduced to calling me names and making up shit. I understand, it must be difficult to deal with, being embarrassed like that.
Click to expand...

I was shown wrong, admit it and I said I was sorry. It is verry classless to keep throwing it at me. I agree I was wrong.

Now back to you, who have not admitted your mistake and are making a 'pittaful attempt to try to regain some scantilla of respect'!
 
Dixie, glad you are back... So are you ready to get some balls and admit you have been mistaken about WMD?
 
Do you know the date of construction on these bombs?

I don't recall how long they had been buried and also, how were they going to deliver these that would have been a threat to the continental USA or even North America?

Did Saddam have a delivery system that could hit Israel and isn't Israel able to defend herself if attacked in this manner? What direct threat were these WMD to us?
 
This is why I continue to believe that getting the inspectors back in would have been the more prudent way to go.
Then Bush could have focused bringing those to law the ones who attacked us on 9/11 and the billions spent in Iraq on borrowed money could have been used here to improve our infrastructure and shore up our defenses against attack.
Good investigative work would be the key to that and not in the form of spying on those who don't agree with your foreign aspirations, just the bad guys!
 
Do you know the date of construction on these bombs?

It doesn't matter, they were supposed to be non existing. Saddam said he destroyed them. You claimed Clinton destroyed them when he launched a few missiles in '98. The inspectors did not find them, our troops found them.

I don't recall how long they had been buried and also, how were they going to deliver these that would have been a threat to the continental USA or even North America?

Did Saddam have a delivery system that could hit Israel and isn't Israel able to defend herself if attacked in this manner? What direct threat were these WMD to us?

Apparently, you didn't read my post. The issue was not about the potency of these weapons, it was about their existence. You see... this may be hard for a simple mind to understand, but... whenever someone wants to make something, they can generally figure out how to do it, if they have a few to take apart and examine. If they can find the right scientists, who know about that chem/bio stuff... they can take a pile of castor bean hulls, grind them up into a fine powder called Ricin, and load them into a new prototype bomb, created from the degraded WMD found in Saddam's desert.

Now... if a dumb ol' hick from Alabama like Dixie, can figure this out, imagine what amazingly brilliant chem/bio weapons scientists can figure out?

The ISSUE was the EXISTENCE of WMD in IRAQ! Not the potency! It was more about the technology than the potency, and considering the time frame taken, couldn't have possibly ever been about the potency of Sarin bombs, as they have a short shelf life. It wasn't the direct threat Saddam posed to US cities! Had that been the case, we would be discussing the big oil-filled fishbowl in the cradle of civilization. It was the ability Saddam had, to build and produce WMD's, and our inability to be certain about what was going on.
 
This is why I continue to believe that getting the inspectors back in would have been the more prudent way to go.

This is because you have a simple mind, and think the "inspectors" were in Iraq to search for weapons. That was not the case at all. These were not inspectors, like Pink Panther or Gadget... they were more like USDA inspectors at a pork house. Their function in Iraq, was to verify and confirm the whereabouts of the WMD's we knew Saddam had, and the status of the programs he was involved in. He was never forthcoming with information, and without anything to "inspect" the inspectors had nothing to do, except chase their tails. They were never in Iraq to seek out and find Saddam's hidden WMD's, that is a myth you've somehow developed in your pinhead minds.
 
Jarod said:
Dixie, glad you are back... So are you ready to get some balls and admit you have been mistaken about WMD?
Click to expand...



Still havent figured a spin that can respond to your mistake...? You are wrong about politics and your blind devotion to Bush and the Neo-Cons!
 
I can always tell when I've made a valid point, a couple of idiots always come along and chortle about how I don't know anything. Thanks guys, you may as well have posted congratulations to me for schooling your asses.
 
Dixie said:
I can always tell when I've made a valid point, a couple of idiots always come along and chortle about how I don't know anything. Thanks guys, you may as well have posted congratulations to me for schooling your asses.
Click to expand...

You have made no point, you have only ignored the fact that your creditability has been smeared in a pile of excrament!

Come on, save some bit of your creditability and admit you were wrong all along about WMD! You already did it once... just admit it!
 
As I've already said, Jarhead... I can't be "wrong" about something I don't know. Maybe in your pinhead logic world, people can be wrong about what they don't know, but here in the real world, that is impossible.
 
Oh... and make sure to wash that excrement off you hands, I've heard it could cause ecoli and stuff. I would hate to think I caused you to poison your cutomers at McDonalds.
 
You did not say "I dont know" you said...

"I would say, it doesn't appear he had WMD at the time we invaded."


But a couple months ago you argeued for pages and pages that you were sure he had WMD... I guess Ill have to go dig up that thread!
 
"Jarod, I just posted the story about the declassified report, which directly contradicts your assertion that Iraq had no WMD's. Answer my fucking questions, boy! Are you dillusional, lying, or just plain wrong?" - Dixie

"Well, there were WMD's, as the report I posted indicates. " - Dixie

"Apparently, you and Saddam lied to the American people about it, because they were discovered. I can't speak for Bush, or your careful parsing of his words to make your idiotic point, but as far as WMD's in Iraq, they were found." - Dixie

"Again, the argument was NOT whether certain specific WMD's were there, it was whether WMD's existed in Iraq or not... I think we've settled that matter, they WERE there, we found them. Now, you can argue about whether they were the right ones, or if they were dangerous, that's valid... but to try and say they didn't exist, when the reports contradict you, is absurd." - DIxie

"Again, the Pinhead argument was always... No WMD's in Iraq! Well, you were wrong." - Dixie



"I would say, it doesn't appear he had WMD at the time we invaded." - Dixie
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top