Now that Terrorists in Iraq have used chemical weapons, how deep is the foot in the mouth of Liberals?

Answer 1

@Aviator

"I don't understand the question very well. I think you are saying liberals said that there weren't terrorists in Iraq. Or that terrorists didn't have chemical weapons. I've never seen either implied by liberals in this forum. So I guess you have been caught in a straw man argument."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truth Seeker - " those terrorists were NOT in Iraq until we attacked and occupied the country. You are the one with your foot in your mouth. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is crazy, they have been attacking us from as early as the 80's. This was a problem waaaaaaaaaaay before 9/11 or the iraq war. Admit it people, not only did we find wmd's before, we found thema ctually using them now. How could you root for someone using sarin gas and use the argument well they didnt start using it untill we came so its ok now. Is that what your going to say when they use chem weapons on your house, are you going to thank them for being "freedom fighters" . The hipocracy of you terrorist liberals is pure evil.

Answer 2

there is an enormous difference between using a chemical weapons, and using a chemical as an improvised weapon.
chemical weapons are chemicals that have been modified for the purpose of being used in wars.
these chemicals are not modified.
they are only trucks with tanks on the back of them, with a bomb strapped to them, so they will increase the damage.
are these same trucks chemical weapons when they are driving down our highways?
is it a chemical weapon when they were strapping bombs to oil wells?
no, but they can be used as an improvised weapon.
no liberal, or anyone else for that matter, stated terrorists or insurgents would not be using improvised weapons.
matter of fact, many of the libs i know, it was one of their fears that this is what was going to happen, along with those people over there dressing as American troops. pretty much why they didn't want our troops in there, in the first place.

Answer 3

I don't understand the question very well. I think you are saying liberals said that there weren't terrorists in Iraq. Or that terrorists didn't have chemical weapons. I've never seen either implied by liberals in this forum. So I guess you have been caught in a straw man argument.

And for the record, if you know that there have been different WMDs in Iraq over the years, you would also know that the WMDs we went to war over were never found, and the White House admitted they weren't there.

Answer 4

They will down grade the weapons like they did the mustard and sarin gas found in Iraq in 2004, or they'll swear these particular weapons were never in Iraq.They seem to ignore not only the solid proof but even testimony's given by Saddam's own people such as
Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti was a southern regional commander for Saddam Hussein's Fedayeen militia,Gen. Babaker Shawkat Zebari ,the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force General Georges Sada,Nizar Nayyouf Syrian a journalist who recently defected from Syria to Western Europe knows the three sites where Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are kept al-Baida ,Tal Snan,and the city of Sjinsjar he even drew a map of the tunnels..... But all Liberals know more than these guys , so they will play it off as Republican garbage...

Answer 5

Have you been hibernating with the bears......Wake up and smell the coffee !!!

I am a Canadian....And i am very much aware of the resources at the disposal of the insurgents & terrorist organizations. They have always had that ability....Just takes a radical Nutcase with unbalanced hemispheres to make the decision to use them.

It has never been a matter of if they use them...it's when they do.
On paper they are seriously over matched ...so they use what tact & resoures they have...They don't have a prayer in hell going toe to toe with America.

Look at what their doing now....With all the High tech "toys" The US have to play with America still has to send in more troops...Put a man in a corner ....and he 'll come out swinging.

This is slowly becomming another Vietnam for America....but 35 years later. Same situation prevailed there. America had all the Firepower and Military might...but look at the end result.

Can you say Daja Vu ???

Answer 6

because somebody bombed a truck with clorine in it?

anyone could do that if they had a bomb...

WMD mean they refine chemicals into for the purpose of biological warfare... not just blow up a tanker?

no wonder you guys believe Bush, you have no clue what's going on?

Have you noticed... no Republicans have came out and said "see that! we were right!"... that's because they weren't...

and Bush said we were going in to find weapons made post gulf war? none have been found? am I the only one that listens to him?

Santorum tried to pull this same song and dance and the White House, DOD and Fox News all smacked him down like a year ago? are they all liberal? am I the only one paying attention to what is going on here?

Answer 7

it really is not any longer a chemical weapon, because it really is not any longer a chemical. Uranium is an element, like copper or brass, except it really is totally heavy. it really is so heavy that maximum occurrences of it are what's termed radioactive, the molecules are below truly some rigidity to eject textile (radioactive debris) which could smash havoc on organic and organic textile. Depleted uranium, because the call shows, is uranium it really is or is extra regularly than not no longer radioactive. it is going to probable be harmless sufficient for intake in case you so wanted. that could no longer unavoidably continually the case in case you comprehend the complexities of radioactive elements, yet usually it really is probability-free to be round. wide-spread enriched uranium, or perhaps the stuff discovered interior the wild, would usually grant you with such extreme radiation poisoning that it's not going you would proceed to exist.

Answer 8

Not at all considering the fact that NONE of this happened until AFTER we invaded. LOL

We invade, no weapons found --------> we were right

Years later, report issued that Iraq did NOT have WMD and that they were not present at time of invasion ---------> we were right

Bushco conducts the war poorly, insurgency forms, porous borders allow fighters/ new Al'Queda to form many years later and NOW they have used Cl2 gas, and this somehow vindicates you? If anything it makes you look that much stupider for invading a CONTAINED and STABLE sovereign nation where there was no threat.

Answer 9

Well, I have this to say....... There were no biological, chemical or nuclear weapons in Iraq before we got there. Now there appears to be.... What does that tell you.

I'd say that George Bush brought WMD's to Iraq where there were NONE before.

Answer 10

terrorists are by definition loners and radicals ... if they are being supplied with hundreds of thousands of pounds of advanced high explosive devices and chemical weapons then they arnt cooking it up in a basement and we are in fact fighting another government not terrorists ... neither would terrorists be able to pull off an attack of any significance in the united states ... so we need to determine who exactly we are fighting ... i'll give u 2 choices ... either a foreign govt ... or our own special operations designed to support further aggression by the US in the middle east agianst iran and syria .. and the latter is the more likely ... terrorist? bah ... yeah right .. use ur head ..