the other Greg Childers Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:I'm still waiting.

Again, for what? I, and others, have answered ALL of your questions. You have yet to respond to any damn thing.

You've responded with debunked reports of 16 year old sarin.

I'm still waiting.

I guess you do not consider a nuclear centrifuge a WMD?? or missiles with range beyond what was allowed Saddam WMD?? Iraq is not exactly known as a agriculture mecca in the Middle East but we found warehouses of pesticides that are known throughout the world as the poor mans starting point for chemical weapons.

So in your mind Saddam had no WMD?? Which I guess would make Saddam the most idiotic dictator in history. The only thing he had to do to maintain power and be sitting in his palace today watching his two sons proudly rape Iraqi women would have been to let weapons inspectors have complete access to his country.
Instead Saddam would send his military to block access to warehouses. He would make the inspectors sit outside for hours while truck loads of material were moved out of warehouses. When an Iraqi scientist tried to leave with U.N. inspectors, Saddam's troops dragged him out of the U.N. truck only to take him off and execute him. Saddam wanted the world and especially Iran and the majority Shiite population in Iraq to believe that he had WMD's.

When we were on the road to Baghdad both the Jordanian and Egyptian intelligence agency's notified the U.S. that Saddam was going to use chemical weapons to prevent us from entering Baghdad.
Some of our Intelligence community believed this to be the truth and some thought it just a delaying tactic. Others believe that Syria helped Saddam get rid of his WMD because they did not want him using it and having to deal with the inevitable U.S. response which probably would of been chemical or low yielding nukes which would of floated down wind into Syria and Jordan.

Bottom line is there was lots of intelligence to support any position back then and now liberals are cherry picking and using hind sight is 20/20 to play politics with this issue.

ShoreBuc Wrote:I guess you do not consider a nuclear centrifuge a WMD?? or missiles with range beyond what was allowed Saddam WMD?? Iraq is not exactly known as a agriculture mecca in the Middle East but we found warehouses of pesticides that are known throughout the world as the poor mans starting point for chemical weapons.

So in your mind Saddam had no WMD?? Which I guess would make Saddam the most idiotic dictator in history. The only thing he had to do to maintain power and be sitting in his palace today watching his two sons proudly rape Iraqi women would have been to let weapons inspectors have complete access to his country.
Instead Saddam would send his military to block access to warehouses. He would make the inspectors sit outside for hours while truck loads of material were moved out of warehouses. When an Iraqi scientist tried to leave with U.N. inspectors, Saddam's troops dragged him out of the U.N. truck only to take him off and execute him. Saddam wanted the world and especially Iran and the majority Shiite population in Iraq to believe that he had WMD's.

When we were on the road to Baghdad both the Jordanian and Egyptian intelligence agency's notified the U.S. that Saddam was going to use chemical weapons to prevent us from entering Baghdad.
Some of our Intelligence community believed this to be the truth and some thought it just a delaying tactic. Others believe that Syria helped Saddam get rid of his WMD because they did not want him using it and having to deal with the inevitable U.S. response which probably would of been chemical or low yielding nukes which would of floated down wind into Syria and Jordan.

Not that I disagree with what you said, but doesn't all the evidence after the bold text (my addition), in fact, support the idea that he was probably one of the stupidest dictators in history. There have got to be better ways to fool the UN.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

ShoreBuc Wrote:I guess you do not consider a nuclear centrifuge a WMD?? or missiles with range beyond what was allowed Saddam WMD?? Iraq is not exactly known as a agriculture mecca in the Middle East but we found warehouses of pesticides that are known throughout the world as the poor mans starting point for chemical weapons.

So in your mind Saddam had no WMD?? Which I guess would make Saddam the most idiotic dictator in history. The only thing he had to do to maintain power and be sitting in his palace today watching his two sons proudly rape Iraqi women would have been to let weapons inspectors have complete access to his country.
Instead Saddam would send his military to block access to warehouses. He would make the inspectors sit outside for hours while truck loads of material were moved out of warehouses. When an Iraqi scientist tried to leave with U.N. inspectors, Saddam's troops dragged him out of the U.N. truck only to take him off and execute him. Saddam wanted the world and especially Iran and the majority Shiite population in Iraq to believe that he had WMD's.

When we were on the road to Baghdad both the Jordanian and Egyptian intelligence agency's notified the U.S. that Saddam was going to use chemical weapons to prevent us from entering Baghdad.
Some of our Intelligence community believed this to be the truth and some thought it just a delaying tactic. Others believe that Syria helped Saddam get rid of his WMD because they did not want him using it and having to deal with the inevitable U.S. response which probably would of been chemical or low yielding nukes which would of floated down wind into Syria and Jordan.

Not that I disagree with what you said, but doesn't all the evidence after the bold text (my addition), in fact, support the idea that he was probably one of the stupidest dictators in history. There have got to be better ways to fool the UN.

No doubt the man was a complete idiot. He could be sitting in Syria, Jordan, Libya or Saudi Arabia right now as a Billionaire. Instead his arrogance and ignorance led him to the gallows so he is now taking a dirt nap with his two sons.

absolute power, control, pride/ego trump money for a guy like Saddam. The world has a history of insane leaders, they are evil. plus, he wanted to be a modern day Saladin and have the entire muslim world worship him.


its interesting his favorite movie was the Godfather, one thing I share with Saddam but with him no telling how he viewed it.

RebelKev Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:You've responded with debunked reports of 16 year old sarin.

I'm still waiting.

Wrong, I responded with information on WMDs he wasn't supposed to have. Next?

Personally, I always considered the most dangerous Iraqi WMD to be Dr. Mahdi Obeidi.

RebelKev Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:You've responded with debunked reports of 16 year old sarin.

I'm still waiting.

Wrong, I responded with information on WMDs he wasn't supposed to have. Next?

Wrong. You responded with debunked information.

I'm still waiting.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:Wrong. You responded with debunked information.

I'm still waiting.

Debunked? So you don't believe WMDs were found, even though you've been SHOWN a declassified document?

I'll reiterate, you won't believe anything that doesn't go along with your ignorant agenda.

RebelKev Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:Wrong. You responded with debunked information.

I'm still waiting.

Debunked? So you don't believe WMDs were found, even though you've been SHOWN a declassified document?

I'll reiterate, you won't believe anything that doesn't go along with your ignorant agenda.

And you've been shown that sarin has a shelf life of a few weeks, not 16 years.

I'm still waiting.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:And you've been shown that sarin has a shelf life of a few weeks, not 16 years.

I'm still waiting.

A few weeks? Your intel is incorrect. VERY incorrect.

RebelKev Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:And you've been shown that sarin has a shelf life of a few weeks, not 16 years.

I'm still waiting.

A few weeks? Your intel is incorrect. VERY incorrect.

I've got better intel than you, apparently.

Quote:Sarin has a relatively short shelf life, and will degrade after a period of several weeks to several months. The shelf life may be greatly shortened by impurities in precursor materials. According to the CIA [1], in 1989 the Iraqis destroyed 40 or more tons of sarin that had decomposed, and that some Iraqi sarin had a shelf life of only a few weeks owing mostly to impure precursors.

Like other nerve agents, Sarin can be chemically deactivated with a strong alkali. Typically an 18 percent aqueous solution of sodium hydroxide is used to destroy sarin.

Quote:If stored dry, the half-life of Sarin (an organophosphate) is about 5 hrs. In contact with moisture or basic solutions, OP's apparently breakdown in minutes.

If interested - http://sulcus.berkeley.edu/mcb/165_001/p.../_543.html

Quote:The sarin agent has a limited shelf life unless stored under carefully controlled conditions, Buchanan said.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:Blah Blah

CIA HOLDS THAT THE STOCKS OF SARIN MAY


Tomorrow I'll try to get some Army 54B's to respond to your idiocy, but you know what? You'll dismiss that as well. Why? Doesn't fit your agenda. Sarin is ALSO not the only GDamn Chemical weapon found in Iraq.

Damn, this is like a f'n 9th-grader arguing with a College professor.

RebelKev Wrote:Damn, this is like a f'n 9th-grader arguing with a College professor.

I know. You may take your seat while I begin class, young man.

WMD Owl Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

Machiavelli Wrote:How do you even reason with that? Someone who is that delusional.


Yep, they had WMD's. Everybody knows it!!! You can't even begin to reason with someone who is that far in denial. It's borderline psychotic.

So, you're saying they had NO WMD's as well?

No means 0. Even a part-time substitute teacher should be able to figure that out.

Hmmm.. I think the WMD's went across the Syrian border along with all the cash from the Bank of Iraq in Baghdad.

I'm thinking the same thing. But tell me how that makes our mission in Iraq any less of a failure?

We've screwed up in Iraq over and over again. Blame Rumsfeld, blame Bush, Cheney, Clinton or anybody you want. Point is we have a complete and total disaster on our hands with no end in sight. Its a giant clusterf@#k and we have nobody to blame but ourselves and our elected leaders. The anti-war movement didn't create the Rumsfeld doctrine of waging war on the cheap with inadaquate troop levels, It didn't create the neo-con academic theory of forcing democracy on people who's cultural values completely oppose it at the expense of our servicemen and women. The anti-war movement grew and continues to grow because we keep screwing up. How many chances are you supposed to get before people lose faith in you?

The people we elected to lead our country blew it...big time. If they were corporate officers or anything other than politicans, they would have been out on their a$$es years ago. Leadership means accountability and that is severely lacking in our elected officials across the asile.

I agree with your assessment DWR, but I disagree with whom is to blame.

This is the government we asked for, and now that we have it, we don't want it.

War is ugly, and people don't want it in their living rooms... yet there it is... so we're trying to fight a "nice" war. Don't kill children, even though their parents are "soldiers" and are hiding behind them. WE should somehow care more about their children than they do... and be willing to risk our own children's lives to protect theirs?? Bunk.... If their own parents don't care if they die... then LET them. But then the media shows us pictures, and the "other" side (whichever side that happens to be at the time) starts pointing fingers... and we become self-haters. Do WE hide bombs in schools, churches and people's homes??

Let's practice our age old (dating LONG before Bush, Clinton or anyone else) practice of "BUYING" friends in the world... build a school so that the local leaders can take it over, turn it into a fortress, sell the equipment and buy guns... build an irrigation or water treatment system or so that rebels can take it over and extort the locals to buy guns... Send billions of dollars of food to governments that use it as bargaining chips to create more power for themselves, and negotiate so long that the food spoils, so they need billions MORE in aid... and what do they do then?? They blame us anyway... so we bought NOTHING!!

We don't need to have soldiers on the ground at risk. It's why we developed "smart" weapons... but soldiers on the ground have a better chance of missing the child sleeping in the next room while the terrorist builds a car bomb... A bullet stands less of a chance of setting off the ied while killing the people who drove with their family to plant it (in order to appear less of a threat) and when we kill his father, he grows up to hate us anyway. We put our own children at risk to save theirs, and we wonder why we aren't getting anywhere?? THAT isn't war, my friends. War is dirty... War is kill or be killed. It doesn't have to take years or decades. It can happen FAST... and if pissant insurgents want to put up a fight, you pull your men back, and bomb the crap out of them until enough of them realize that we have more bombs than they have people. That's how we defeated Japan, and how we lost Korea and Vietnam. THEY obviously studied history... unfortunately, WE didn't.

We downsized our military because we replaced manpower with weapons, and now we lament not having a big enough military.