I guess it'll be "No...those aren't IT either!".
2007-02-22 03:07:26 · 15 answers · asked by bradxschuman 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Oh..so chemical weapons don't qualify anymore????
What's next?....a nuke goes off and "that's not a WMD either"???
2007-02-22 03:13:39 · update #1
Well, I've certainly noticed how the Liberal definition of WMD keeps changing as events unfold.
2007-02-22 03:17:15 · update #2
Touchy...aren't we??
2007-02-22 03:35:41 · update #3
Kris...I don't. But it's better to be real than it is to be in a constant state of denial....abridged as neccesary, of course.
2007-02-22 05:07:21 · update #4
Dirty bombs???
I've been in Iraq for almost a year and have not seen a dirty bomb.
I've seen IEDs, VBIEDs, Gas canisters in stockpiles, Chlorine gas in VBIEDs, Old car parts in IEDs, Dead bodies in VBIEDs etc..... but no radioactive material.
Hera, you are wrong, WMDs include chemical weapons. Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons agains the Kurds, Iranians and his own people. We know he had them, we have found them. The media doesn't tell you this because it does not mesh with their political viewpoint, but history proves that he had them.
NOBODY claimed that Iraq had nuclear weapons.
2007-02-22 03:15:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
Your argument is a bit non-sequitor. The "WMD"s you are speaking of are basic chlorine gas bombs. Anyone can easily create them with household products if you know how. This kind of gas has been used in warfare since World War I -- perhaps before. After World War I, 17 nations signed the Geneva Convention Protocols, which outlawed chemical weapons.
These cannot be any of the weapons Reagan sold to Saddam Hussein because of the short shelf life of many of these agents. If the weapons inspectors missed any of those in the 90's (and they didn't) they would be useless by now. Therefore, these weapons we're seeing now are home-grown, created recently, and possibly funded by Saudi money and resources to aid the Sunni insurgency.
2007-02-22 03:22:37 · answer #2 · answered by Brandon F 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
What does one have to do with the other? The dirty bombs that are being used aren't the WMD that was "Supposed" to be there. The WMD that they were looking for was NUKES...you know yellow cake that Chaney and Bush were touting that came from Africa?
You really are far reaching in your ideas...just an observance.
2007-02-22 03:13:37 · answer #3 · answered by hera 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Your ignorance is as astounding as your cowardice. Why aren't you in Iraq if you're so brave and believe in the cause?
A "dirty bomb" is a weapon that causes damage long after it is detonated, such as shells coated with depleted uranium, like the US uses.
The chlorine in the two bombs dissipates into the atmosphere within minutes and poses no threat; it is no more deadly than an incendiary bomb.
But you wouldn't know anything about that, would you? You have no military experience or scientific education.
.
2007-02-22 03:26:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
possibly Pat Robertson ought to be taken in for interrogation if he knows of something. possibly he desires somewhat waterboard action. Payback for each and all the 'witches' drowned over the centuries.
2016-12-14 03:08:17 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
nothing,it has been 4 years since the WMDs claim was made,anything can be brought across open borders.. it is strange how the department of defense changes definitions,they must be a lib organization.
2007-02-22 03:19:08 · answer #6 · answered by b 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Terrorists have not used a "dirty" bomb.
Conservatives not just making stuff up would be a big help.
2013-09-14 19:27:20 · answer #7 · answered by Smoking Joe Biden 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If by "dirty bomb" you mean they're shooting up chlorine gas canisters to release the gas, then yes, they're using dirty bombs. If you mean "dirty bombs" as in explosive devices designed to spread radioactive material over a large area, then you're wrong.
Pay attention. Republicans as well as Democrats are against this war. Labeling your enemies "libs" doesn't help your arguments, nor does it make you morally superior. Grow up, get out of the sandbox.
2007-02-22 03:11:19 · answer #8 · answered by eatmorec11h17no3 6 · 6⤊ 3⤋
By definition, a weapon of mass destruction, when successfully used, will result in..........
"MASS DESTRUCTION"
of lives and/or property.
Blowing up some chlorine cylinders does not meet this definition in any way shape or form.
Keep trying.
2007-02-22 03:15:37 · answer #9 · answered by lunatic 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
lol! whatever the insurgents are using now hasn't been laying in stockpile since 2003. Is it your claim that we can retro-actively claim justification for the invasion?
2007-02-22 03:12:42 · answer #10 · answered by Alan S 7 · 6⤊ 2⤋