Do you believe depleted sarin shells from the 1980s are worth starting a 300 billion$ pre-emptive war over?

Question

Can anyone really say that they think 20 year old depleted sarin posed any sort of threat, imminent or not, to America or its interests? Do you sincerely believe it was basis for a war? If so, please explain.

Please also explain how this equates to "Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin". This quote by the President states that TONS of these weapons existed. Do you believe 500 depleted shells constitutes a 'stockpile' or a modern weapons system? Do you believe 20 year old missiles are a sign of active production?

If so, why are we not at war with North Korea? Why not Iran? Why not Libya? These nations have all admitted they have biochemical weapons programs.

Can anyone really say that they think 20 year old depleted sarin posed any sort of threat, imminent or not, to America or its interests? Do you sincerely believe it was basis for a war? If so, please explain.

Please also explain how this equates to "Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin". This quote by the President states that TONS of these weapons existed. Do you believe 500 depleted shells constitutes a 'stockpile' or a modern weapons system? Do you believe 20 year old missiles are a sign of active production?

Sarin in fact does degrade/decay. It loses its potency after a few weeks when not stored properly (being buried in desert sand easily qualifies).

"But intelligence officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitive nature, said the weapons were produced before the 1991 Gulf War and there is no evidence to date of chemical munitions manufactured since then. They said an assessment of the weapons concluded they are so degraded that they couldn't now be used as designed." --from Yahoo article

"It is less toxic than most things that Americans have under their kitchen sink at this point," Kay said.
He said experts on Iraq's chemical weapons are in "almost 100 percent agreement" that sarin nerve agent produced from the 1980s would no longer be dangerous.

And any of Iraq's 1980s-era mustard would produce burns, but it is unlikely to be lethal, Kay said.

SARIN NOT LETHAL AFTER 20 YEARS

"And any of Iraq's 1980s-era mustard would produce burns, but it is unlikely to be lethal, Kay said."

Try again

Answer 1

No!
Neither do U.

We're not exactly in charge are we?
We're all fed bulls!it & told to suck it up.
My Magic Wand didn't arrive in the Post this morning, it's on back order since 1979, when I first realised that the World's A PILE OF STINKING DOG SH!T.

Answer 2

You are a fool. The war is much larger than that. Al-Queda is ONE terrorist group. The larger threat to Americans and the world is the entire region of anti-western religious zealot Islama-Nuts who, because of oppressive regimes with state run media and religious kooks who preach twisted anti-everything but Islam crap, are intent on rising up and avenging proported wrongs done to them by America. Look at what is happening strategically, if you can. Iraq and Afghanistan surround what nation? Believe it or not, there are movements in all the mid-east nations of people who are moderate, and yearn for freedom and opportunity. The goals here are much larger than WMD's, Saddam is a killer, bla bla bla. I know this in not WW2, but the nation building post WW2 (Germany, Japan, Italy, Turkey) is the model in this case too. Yes, it is nation building. I ask you, has anyone learned from history? Just think of what stable, free and prosperous nations in that region will do in countries like Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and to radical Islam as a whole. This is not just a war on Iraq and Afghanistan. They are the opening phases of new long term project in the mid-east. You can say it's pre-emtive and that's wrong, but look at history. I think the President is very brave in his attempt to fend off what in 5-10 years could easily become a new world war. Has he made some miscalculations...sure. No one has a crystal ball. I don't buy these oil, imperialistic right wing conspiriacy theories. He is just trying to keep Americans safe from what sure looked like a much larger disaster in the not so far future. Give it a chance.

Answer 3

Remember, it only took 12 such shells to kill 5,000 people in 1988. Even if we only found very few of them, instead of 500, they would still represent a very dangerous threat. And from everything I have heard, they were only degraded enough to preclude them from being launched in an artillery shell or aerial bomb. Very few people really know what they mean by "degraded". For all we know, degraded simply means they have become less stable, and actually more dangerous, rather than less dangerous.

Answer 4

When sarin degrades, it take a little longer to kill. Same with mustard gas. Degraded mustard gas doesn't burn or kill you immediately. Because it doesn't kill instantly, it's no longer a good battle weapon. It is a good terrorist weapon (because they don't care how long it takes you to die as long as you die) and must be carefully destroyed.

Yes, it is worth every cent!

Answer 5

These will prove to be just the tip of the iceberg....ie those munitions that weren't worth hiding. BTW, these 500 or so shell still had the ability to kill tens of thouosands of people.

Answer 6

Would ya rather be killed by those shells, if so then please move to Iraq and if ya don't wanna do that then quit whining about the fact that President Bush and our Troops have saved your life.

Answer 7

lol .hell know and i see that the bush peoples shut theses idiots up on trying to make this country believe that also.bad reporting neo cons

Answer 8

Did you believe saddam when he said he had no weapons?

Do you not think saddam had any others ?

Why are you so quick to believe saddam?

Answer 9

Nah, 1.3 trillion, and not a penny less. can't touch it for less than that, sorry! LOL

Answer 10

What would you do or pay to protect your loved ones?