Actual chemical weapons found in Iraq!!!

[Lil' Timmy]

eyah god love play boy, and abortions. He also loves all the broken homes we have. u also want to know what he loves he love lefties.... not

sounds like we need a morality-inspired religious revolution in this country!!!! a veritable jihad!! oh wait..

oh and waedoe, why give the middle-east to isreal? why not just let the US have it all?

 

[pat_thetic]

Well they said they were from the 80-88 Iranian war. That means that those are american chemical weapons that the us gave iraq at that time.

Nearly every powerful western country in the world gave them stuff like this. You can't pin it to the US.

 

[MultiVaC]

eyah god love play boy, and abortions. He also loves all the broken homes we have. u also want to know what he loves he love lefties.... not

Oh damn, you just broke my heart. So you think that God likes you more than me? Does God only like Christians?

 

[waedoe]

Oh damn, you just broke my heart. So you think that God likes you more than me? Does God only like Christians?

no, in the bible it states that he love everyone. But only those that belive go to heaven. its your choice if you want to go or not. nobodies forcing u

 

[pat_thetic]

He sure doesn't love me....

 

[GhostValkyrie]

nobodies forcing u

LOL! Waedoe, check your messages.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

Nearly every powerful western country in the world gave them stuff like this. You can't pin it to the US.

actually only france, russia and china did signifcant business with iraq, but none did as much weapons selling as the US. it's no secret that we (phillips petroleum, teledyne, atcc, among others) sold iraq biological agents, including botulinin, bubonic plague and anthrax. the CDC admits to sending iraqi researchers various toxins and bacteria in 1985. i'm pretty sure that at least two companies were even indicted and convicted of illegal dealings (alcolac and teledyne) with iraq regarding chemicals.

we even sold the iranians weapons.. ahh nothing like selling weapons to both sides of a war you shouldn't even be involved in.. yummy.

 

[waedoe]

LOL! Waedoe, check your messages.

i did and i replied PWNED

 

[gh0st]

hmm, i hardly think decade old left-over blister shellss from the iran-iraq war qualify as the mythical WMDs that so fully justify this war. hell, we knew they had those.. rumsfeld and regan knew they were using chemical weapons in the 80s. i'd be less than surprised if these old shells were developed from the $1.5 million worth of "pesticides" that Dow sold them during that war.

obviously, no one considered rusty left-overs from the i-i war to be the impending doom that would befall the whole world in about 45 minutes. aren't those the fanciful weapons that the more impulsive people where so concerned about when the case was made for this war? you can shoot mortar shells over the atlantic right??

i'd be happy to see actual WMDs found.. i'd also be rather shocked, but happy nonetheless.

irregardless of waedoes poor grammatical abilities, a WMD does not have to be a hydrogen bomb, or VX gas. it can be as much as a mortar with mustard gas in it (hell, would make a more effective weapon of terror than a missile). no you cant shoot mortar shells over the atlantic - but you can ship the parts here, or smuggle them in. people do it everyday, with drugs coming over the border. the delivery system is irrelevent - the effect is what matters. and it doesnt matter if its a blister agent its still a CHEMICAL, NUCLEAR, or BIOLOGICAL WEAPON. I.E IT IS A WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION. god people try to play this down but it justifies the war, and people like timmy are refusing to accept that maybe our administration was right about this.

oh and timmy? lets see how much you like it when a fistfull of blister agents are shoved firmly up your ass.

 

[waedoe]

actually only france, russia and china did signifcant business with iraq, but none did as much weapons selling as the US. it's no secret that we (phillips petroleum, teledyne, atcc, among others) sold iraq biological agents, including botulinin, bubonic plague and anthrax. the CDC admits to sending iraqi researchers various toxins and bacteria in 1985. i'm pretty sure that at least two companies were even indicted and convicted of illegal dealings (alcolac and teledyne) with iraq regarding chemicals.

we even sold the iranians weapons.. ahh nothing like selling weapons to both sides of a war you shouldn't even be involved in.. yummy.

you know what im sick of the blame game. blame the U.S for giving so and so weapons, blame the U.S. for not doing that. GUESS WHAT your bitching doesnt fix a thing. hey heres an idea. instead of picking everything apart, why dont you try to fix a problem rather than blame some one. Hell its usually the liberals fault for what going on in these times. i also wonder mabe if the "LIBERALS" would have let us kill or capture saddam in the first gulf war mabe we wouldnt be in the predicamint. Id also like to point out that U.S. COMPANIES NOT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT SOLD THOSE DRUGZ get it straight.

 

[gh0st]

actually only france, russia and china did signifcant business with iraq, but none did as much weapons selling as the US. it's no secret that we (phillips petroleum, teledyne, atcc, among others) sold iraq biological agents, including botulinin, bubonic plague and anthrax. the CDC admits to sending iraqi researchers various toxins and bacteria in 1985. i'm pretty sure that at least two companies were even indicted and convicted of illegal dealings (alcolac and teledyne) with iraq regarding chemicals.

we even sold the iranians weapons.. ahh nothing like selling weapons to both sides of a war you shouldn't even be involved in.. yummy.

not sure what the iran-iraq war has to do with any of this but ok.

and actually russia did provide iraq with 1) massive stockpiles of small arms and 2) anthrax. china also has nearly 80 million dollars of weapons contracts with iraq, while germany has also millions of dollars of vechicle contracts with iraq.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

you know what im sick of the blame game. blame the U.S for giving so and so weapons, blame the U.S. for not doing that. GUESS WHAT your bitching doesnt fix a thing. hey heres an idea. instead of picking everything apart, why dont you try to fix a problem rather than blame some one. Hell its usually the liberals fault for what going on in these times. i also wonder mabe if the "LIBERALS" would have let us kill or capture saddam in the first gulf war mabe we wouldnt be in the predicamint. Id also like to point out that U.S. COMPANIES NOT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT SOLD THOSE DRUGZ get it straight.

it was bush sr. that pulled out of the war, not "liberals". it's not a "blame game" for me, it's about understanding how the current situation arose and thereby trying to prevent it in the future. short-sighted ideas like yours simply perpetuate more war and terror in the future. it's a philosophical stance: it's vitally important to know how the present situation came to be in order to affect any change in the future. you can disagree with that premise if you want, it's just my personal philosophy.

 

[gh0st]

it was bush sr. that pulled out of the war, not "liberals". it's not a "blame game" for me, it's about understanding how the current situation arose and thereby trying to prevent it in the future. short-sighted ideas like yours simply perpetuate more war and terror in the future. it's a philosophical stance: it's vitally important to know how the present situation came to be in order to affect any change in the future. you can disagree with that premise if you want, it's just my personal philosophy.

bush senior pulled out of the war because the UN only "permitted" him to go as far as free kuwait, not to actually conquer iraq itself. fortunately our leaders have wisend up

 

[Lil' Timmy]

not sure what the iran-iraq war has to do with any of this but ok.

and actually russia did provide iraq with 1) massive stockpiles of small arms and 2) anthrax. china also has nearly 80 million dollars of weapons contracts with iraq, while germany has also millions of dollars of vechicle contracts with iraq.

i never said otherwise (other than leaving out germany, thx for the correction). and the US had billions of dollars worth in contracts. ok.

 

[waedoe]

it was bush sr. that pulled out of the war, not "liberals". it's not a "blame game" for me, it's about understanding how the current situation arose and thereby trying to prevent it in the future. short-sighted ideas like yours simply perpetuate more war and terror in the future. it's a philosophical stance: it's vitally important to know how the present situation came to be in order to affect any change in the future. you can disagree with that premise if you want, it's just my personal philosophy.

so your personall philosophy is based on stopping terrorism with out taking action? by leaving saddam in power and letting him terrorize his people you are helping your philosphy. i fail to see where exactly your "philosophy comes into play. And like what ghost and i were saying, do you not care about the Gas mortars and stuff?

 

[gh0st]

this is the british dossier on iraq (part of it)

As a result of the intelligence we judge that Iraq has:
● continued to produce chemical and biological agents;
● military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, including
against its own Shia population. Some of these weapons are deployable
within 45 minutes of an order to use them;
● command and control arrangements in place to use chemical and biological
weapons. Authority ultimately resides with Saddam Hussein. (There is
intelligence that he may have delegated this authority to his son Qusai);
● developed mobile laboratories for military use, corroborating earlier reports
about the mobile production of biological warfare agents;
● pursued illegal programmes to procure controlled materials of potential use
in the production of chemical and biological weapons programmes;
● tried covertly to acquire technology and materials which could be used in the
production of nuclear weapons;
● sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, despite having no
active civil nuclear power programme that could require it;
● recalled specialists to work on its nuclear programme;
● illegally retained up to 20 al-Hussein missiles, with a range of 650km,
capable of carrying chemical or biological warheads;
● started deploying its al-Samoud liquid propellant missile, and has used the
absence of weapons inspectors to work on extending its range to at least
200km, which is beyond the limit of 150km imposed by the United Nations;
● started producing the solid-propellant Ababil-100, and is making efforts to
extend its range to at least 200km, which is beyond the limit of 150km
imposed by the United Nations;
● constructed a new engine test stand for the development of missiles capable
of reaching the UK Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus and NATO members
(Greece and Turkey), as well as all Iraq’s Gulf neighbours and Israel;
● pursued illegal programmes to procure materials for use in its illegal
development of long range missiles;
● learnt lessons from previous UN weapons inspections and has already begun
to conceal sensitive equipment and documentation in advance of the return
of inspectors.

not like you wont just say they are our bitches, but it was an independent intelligence gathering "programme" but its still interesting.

 

[waedoe]

timmy what do you think about the banned scuds that were used against us?

 

[Lil' Timmy]

this is of course the dossier that based some of it's findings on an essay written by a college student download off the internet that has been essentially dissavowed by the UK and US governments.. take it for what it's worth.

waedoe, my philosophy recognizes that blind action, such as this war clearly was is at least as dangerous as non-action. clearly the preffered choice would be action based on a thoughtful evaluation of the situations. the point is that this war was undertaken under the exact same kind of mentality that created saddam in the first place. if you just blow it up now and ask questions later, don't be surprised when 9/11 part 2 happens.

 

[GhostValkyrie]

9/11 part 2 happens.

One thing we agree on. I really do see this happening.
I don't see it as being the US's fault...we did nothing to cause the first 9/11, but I do see it happening.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

i'm not defending saddamn waedoe, i know as well as everyone else that he's used illegal weapons in the past. the point is that we were 1) lied to by our president, imo 2) we're engaged in conflict with an enemy that we created in many ways 3) ignorance is the root of most strife.

we can invent all sorts of fanciful ways in which the weapons we sold iraq could come back to byte us.. we could do the exact same thing for any dangerous substance in the hands of any country anywhere. do you think we should drop bombs on the CDC? they have tons of nasty shit there that are more likely to be used in a terroist attack against the US.

 

[gh0st]

that blind action, such as this war clearly was is at least as dangerous as non-action. clearly the preffered choice would be action based on a thoughtful evaluation of the situations.

exactly as bush attempted to do with the united nations. if you think the cia, fbi, and our administration are "blind" then you are throroughly dumb.

 

[MultiVaC]

no, in the bible it states that he love everyone. But only those that belive go to heaven. its your choice if you want to go or not. nobodies forcing u

Fascinating. You have a much friendlier persona when you're talking about God. Do you think that God would advocate the war? Do you think he influenced it directly? I think I'm starting to uderstand your confidence a little bit. Most conservatives have a strong religious motivation, but a lot of them I've talked to won't spell out their beliefs the way you did, in a way that gives me some insight. You opened yourself up to a direct attack in terms of debating. Most conservatives wouldn't do this, because well... they're conservative, they avoid things that are precarious when they debate. Religion always ends in a stalemate. I'm not trying to start a debate about religion, this is just standard procedure when I meet someone who is extremely vocal and politacally at odds with me You and I are a timebomb waiting to happen. I want to defuse it now. I think that this goes out to all of you right-wingers; there are lots of political threads cropping up and I for one want to make this clear: To me, this is mostly a mental exercise. I see tempers flaring, and I just want to establish some of my personal boundaries before I jump into this flame pit

 

[waedoe]

this is of course the dossier that based some of it's findings on an essay written by a college student download off the internet that has been essentially dissavowed by the UK and US governments.. take it for what it's worth.

waedoe, my philosophy recognizes that blind action, such as this war clearly was is at least as dangerous as non-action. clearly the preffered choice would be action based on a thoughtful evaluation of the situations. the point is that this war was undertaken under the exact same kind of mentality that created saddam in the first place. if you just blow it up now and ask questions later, don't be surprised when 9/11 part 2 happens.

timmy what are talking about. how is this war more dangerous? leaving saddam in power, is a hell of alot more dangerous. its not like bush could back down after the comments started to fly, then it would make america look weak and more terrorist would probably think that they could hurt america more. I want you to go to iraq *RIGHT* now and ask them if it was worth it. i garentee that they say that it was.
can you explain HOW not going would be least dangerous.

 

[gh0st]

i'm not defending saddamn waedoe, i know as well as everyone else that he's used illegal weapons in the past. the point is that we were 1) lied to by our president, imo 2) we're engaged in conflict with an enemy that we created in many ways 3) ignorance is the root of most strife.

we can invent all sorts of fanciful ways in which the weapons we sold iraq could come back to byte us.. we could do the exact same thing for any dangerous substance in the hands of any country anywhere. do you think we should drop bombs on the CDC? they have tons of nasty shit there that are more likely to be used in a terroist attack against the US.

arrghhh you are just spouting bs today. bomb the CDC? if we did it would no doubt release tons of poisons into the air and kill us all.

the fact is, it is known, even by people who "wish it werent so" that iraq has, and has been MAKING its own chemical program, whether we give them the technology or not is irrelevent. just because the united states give them the tech does that mean that they are all of a sudden disbound to use them morally?

im still not sure how we were lied to by our president. you seem to be forgetting that we've already found chemical weapons that saddam may have developed (whether he did or didnt develop these particular ones is of no concern).

i just dont understand the liberal mindset that if we give someone something that they can use it however they want without ramifications from the world community.

 

[gh0st]

Fascinating. You have a much friendlier persona when you're talking about God. Do you think that God would advocate the war? Do you think he influenced it directly? I think I'm starting to uderstand your confidence a little bit. Most conservatives have a strong religious motivation, but a lot of them I've talked to won't spell out their beliefs the way you did, in a way that gives me some insight. You opened yourself up to a direct attack in terms of debating. Most conservatives wouldn't do this, because well... they're conservative, they avoid things that are precarious when they debate. Religion always ends in a stalemate. I'm not trying to start a debate about religion, this is just standard procedure when I meet someone who is extremely vocal and politacally at odds with me You and I are a timebomb waiting to happen. I want to defuse it now. I think that this goes out to all of you right-wingers; there are lots of political threads cropping up and I for one want to make this clear: To me, this is mostly a mental exercise. I see tempers flaring, and I just want to establish some of my personal boundaries before I jump into this flame pit

i dont have a strong relgious motivation for anything. the bible states that god gives us free will, to do with what we wish. this is why war exists, and why a hell exists. we can only do what we believe is right. if he is truly all powerful, saddam will go to "paradise" and bush will fry.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

it's not about fault GV. it's about understanding the causes. the tendancy in this country is to assume there is nothing to learn from 9/11 except that the terrorists are "evil". many people seem to find it offensive to even think that hte terrorist could have possibly had reasons (perceived or real) for flying themselves into buildings. regardless of whether they have 'valid' reasons for hating the US, wouldn't a better course of action be to try to educate these people rather than confirming their worst fears by invading iraq?

if there is an imminent threat, one has to act, no question. that's why i generally supported military action against the taliban soon after 9/11. but i simply don't think saddam was a threat to us, and unless real, deployable WMDs are found, i'll stand by that.

 

[gh0st]

what the HELL timmy. "real" and certainly "deployable" motors laced with harmful chemicals WERE found. get it through your skull, or i might have to go get the governator to punch it through you

 

[waedoe]

Fascinating. You have a much friendlier persona when you're talking about God. Do you think that God would advocate the war? Do you think he influenced it directly? I think I'm starting to uderstand your confidence a little bit. Most conservatives have a strong religious motivation, but a lot of them I've talked to won't spell out their beliefs the way you did, in a way that gives me some insight. You opened yourself up to a direct attack in terms of debating. Most conservatives wouldn't do this, because well... they're conservative, they avoid things that are precarious when they debate. Religion always ends in a stalemate. I'm not trying to start a debate about religion, this is just standard procedure when I meet someone who is extremely vocal and politacally at odds with me You and I are a timebomb waiting to happen. I want to defuse it now. I think that this goes out to all of you right-wingers; there are lots of political threads cropping up and I for one want to make this clear: To me, this is mostly a mental exercise. I see tempers flaring, and I just want to establish some of my personal boundaries before I jump into this flame pit

To awnser you, ill be blunt, god says turn the cheek. but im not god, and as you know humans sin. but people dont turn cheeks. Thiers a time on this earth where you have to take a stand. what if we turned a cheek on hitler? we'd all be nazi's. In the bible thier are times where you *HAVE* to defend yourself, its not a sin to defend yourself from an aggressor. As in all religions war is obviously bad, but huamn failures create wars, the sins of the planet. Jealousy, decite, folly, lust, etc. i know what your trying to do is use my religion to say ha your wrong, but the war in iraq isnt a religious one its a human one. just to let you know, george bush never declared war on iraq, he declared war on saddams regime. there is a huge difference.

 

[GhostValkyrie]

What I really don't understand is how people say they oppose war because of the casualties, yet turn their head while Saddam murders and rapes his people....And you people say we had peace before the war - Ha! There was no peace, and will be no peace. You say that we need to follow the UN, and be an international community, yet you say we should stay out of their business...
It's absolutely rediculous. This kind of Isolationistic behavior is shocking.

All I can think is that they're so into their personal beliefs that they'll put the lives of others behind them. That they hate Bush so much, that they'll oppose a war that will stop the torment of the Iraqi people.

Waedoe: You're right. God didn't say you had to keep turning the cheek. In fact, God took a stand with nations in many wars. He also talked about injustice and abomination.

 

[gh0st]

because they have no care at all for the world at large, they are selfish immoral and ignorant of global politics. they see no connection to iraq, and the united states other than oil. its really pety.

edit: and valkyrie, are you ever on aim?

 

[Lil' Timmy]

arrghhh you are just spouting bs today. bomb the CDC? if we did it would no doubt release tons of poisons into the air and kill us all.

the fact is, it is known, even by people who "wish it werent so" that iraq has, and has been MAKING its own chemical program, whether we give them the technology or not is irrelevent. just because the united states give them the tech does that mean that they are all of a sudden disbound to use them morally?

im still not sure how we were lied to by our president. you seem to be forgetting that we've already found chemical weapons that saddam may have developed (whether he did or didnt develop these particular ones is of no concern).

i just dont understand the liberal mindset that if we give someone something that they can use it however they want without ramifications from the world community.

you're just inventing words and putting them in my mouth now. i never excused saddam of anything. unlike waedoe, i don't find your posts to contain much info worthy of commenting on, so i'm pretty much going to ignore you, take no offense (hell, it's probably a complement right?). just plz try to avoid making things up and attributing them to me, ok?

 

[waedoe]

heres a website to what it says about war in the new testiment.
http://www.iranite.com/did_jesus_condemn_war.htm

 

[gh0st]

i dont see what words ive invented there, you are just avoiding the question: youre refusing to answer the question of whether or not its excusable to let countries run amok with technology we've given them.

nor did i specifically attribute anything to you, so again im not sure what your talking about.

edit: NOR did i SAY you excused saddam of anything. how about you try to READ my posts first.

 

[waedoe]

you're just inventing words and putting them in my mouth now. i never excused saddam of anything. unlike waedoe, i don't find your posts to contain much info worthy of commenting on, so i'm pretty much going to ignore you, take no offense (hell, it's probably a complement right?). just plz try to avoid making things up and attributing them to me, ok?

GH0ST = PWNED TIMMY AND TIMMY THE 27 year old cant stand it. i guess the govenator worked. AUSTALAVISTA

 

[waedoe]

Timmy from what im understanding, you seem to think that were responsible for the deaths the weapons that we gave saddam. correct me if im wrong!

 

[gh0st]

he might, because your posts are much more intelligent than mine

 

[GhostValkyrie]

I'd like to use this moment to christen what will go down as an offensive signature.
/me points to his new sig.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

i just dont understand the liberal mindset that if we give someone something that they can use it however they want without ramifications from the world community

it's this last sentance of your post gh0st. it's pretty evident what you're saying: the liberal mindset (like mine) excuses (see "without ramifications") the use of weapons that we gave iraq. if you didn't mean it, perhaps you should be more careful with your words.

Timmy from what im understanding, you seem to think that were responsible for the deaths the weapons that we gave saddam. correct me if im wrong!

waedoe, why do you assume that i think that? plz point to where i ever implied that.

 

[gh0st]

once again you didnt answer the question timmy.

 

[MultiVaC]

I'm not trying to beat you Waedoe, I'm getting you to elaborate on some of your underlying philosophy. From your last post I can see some of your deeper views, and they compliment your arguements. Everything you say makes more sense to me now; I understand how you draw your conclusions, not just what they are. Your comments about the nature of humans are actually very relevant in any debate about war.