Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36
  1. #21  
    Senior Member Constitutionally Speaking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,301
    I don't think we were SOLD anything faulty on purpose. If Saddam was on the up and up - and I do NOT think he was, then what Bush did was the result of faulty intelligence.

    That intelligence was faulty because of the literal castration of our intelligence services by starving it of funds (nearly ALL human intelligence was let go by the Clinton administration) and by neutering it with rules that made it impossible to recruit decent new human intelligence.

    I also don't think that 1000 tonnes of VX gas is equivalent to crumbs.
    I long for the days when our President actually liked our country.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    CS... What we were sold and what is there are two different things. What I'm saying is if you are going base the invasion on finding some crumbs, then why haven't we done so with about a half dozen other nations?
    Are you seriously going to be this thick?WMD was only one of MANY reasons given for the war in Iraq. The majority of the intelligence reported that Saddam was expanding or looking to expand his WMD stock piles. The reality is he never complied with the cease fire resolution. He was known to use WMD on his own people and on his adversaries. He was ready willing and able to expand his power and influence by opposing any action we took in the region and giving refuge to our enemies - he'd already been doing just that! Couple those facts with Saddams known connection to terrorism and there was plenty of reason to topple him. True - the intelligence about WMD did not pan out - but that does not justify your position I'm sorry.
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Senior Member Molon Labe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jihad Me At Hello
    Posts
    4,772
    Quote Originally Posted by Constitutionally Speaking View Post
    I don't think we were SOLD anything faulty on purpose. If Saddam was on the up and up - and I do NOT think he was, then what Bush did was the result of faulty intelligence.

    That intelligence was faulty because of the literal castration of our intelligence services by starving it of funds (nearly ALL human intelligence was let go by the Clinton administration) and by neutering it with rules that made it impossible to recruit decent new human intelligence.

    I also don't think that 1000 tonnes of VX gas is equivalent to crumbs.
    Ok... I get your point. Correct me if I'm wrong but the tonnes were not weaponized VX? Do you believe this actually meets the "stockpiling" criteria that was used in the resolutions? Because, I remember units finding mortar and old artillery shells IEDs with agents in them at the beginning of the war. I remember headlines about the bomb squads disarming them, but there was never any story that they would qualify as WMD's or as the "smoking gun".

    Why is it that Bush spent the last 4 years of his presidency trying to fight damage control for not finding any WMD's and still to this day accepts that we found nothing of any relevance?

    So...How did information like this go completely unnoticed in his daily briefings? How is this not a gotcha moment years ago when it was discovered to shove right in the face of the liberals who denouced the war?

    If "this" was the WMD "stockpiles" we were truly "looking for" then why is it still classified? Powell's initial briefing on Weapons had site pictures and everything...so it wasn't because it was too secret to release that we found something.

    I guess CS, this justification for invasion, occupation and nationbuilding and 4000 American soldier deaths just hits a nerve with me. Because for so long we've been bogged down trying to nationbuild this podunk M.E. nation. Thankfully, I think some conservatives are beginning to realize that you can’t have limited government and a policy of endless occupations. Just like government can't solve problems here at home, it sure as hell can't fix the backward M.E. region.
    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown


    The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    718
    Quote Originally Posted by Constitutionally Speaking View Post
    I don't think we were SOLD anything faulty on purpose. If Saddam was on the up and up - and I do NOT think he was, then what Bush did was the result of faulty intelligence.

    That intelligence was faulty because of the literal castration of our intelligence services by starving it of funds (nearly ALL human intelligence was let go by the Clinton administration) and by neutering it with rules that made it impossible to recruit decent new human intelligence.

    I also don't think that 1000 tonnes of VX gas is equivalent to crumbs.
    The nerve agent VX stockpiled at the Newport Chemical Depot in Indiana is stored in 1,690 steel ton containers commonly known as "TCs". These containers are designed specifically for the maintenance, storage, and transportation of bulk chemical agent. The Newport Chemical Depot (NECD) stores bulk nerve agent VX in ton containers that are over six and one-half feet long, and almost three feet in diameter. The solid steel sidewalls are roughly a half inch thick, and each end is about one inch thick. When empty, the containers weigh 1,600 pounds. When filled to capacity, the containers can hold up to 170 gallons of liquid, though the TCs stored at Newport have a layer of nitrogen gas that occupies a 10 percent void within the TC. Ton containers are designed to withstand pressures up to 25 times greater than the pressure of our atmosphere, and internal pressures up to 500 pounds per square inch. The ton containers at Newport are stacked in rows three containers high, and are clamped together for stability on top of wooden concave cradles inside a single warehouse of corrugated steel sheet metal supported by steel beams. In order to provide maximum protection to facility personnel and the environment, storage personnel are trained in handling ton containers storing chemical agent and monitoring the containers for signs of leakage
    A little blurb about the Newport Army Depot, the main srtorage facility for VX in the US.

    Each container holds 400 lbs of VX/container * 1690 containers = 676,000 lbs VX/2200lb per tonne = 307 tonnes VX

    307 tonne = 307,000,000,000 mg

    For a 70kg man, the lethal inhalational dose is 30mg (VX MSDS)

    307 tonne VX = 10,233,333,333 lethal doses

    So 1000 tonnes, over 30 billion lethal doses, of VX is over 3 times what a US Chemical Weapons Depot was designed to hold. Crumbs???
    Last edited by Nubs; 10-27-2010 at 10:55 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Senior Member Constitutionally Speaking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    Ok... I get your point. Correct me if I'm wrong but the tonnes were not weaponized VX? Do you believe this actually meets the "stockpiling" criteria that was used in the resolutions? Because, I remember units finding mortar and old artillery shells IEDs with agents in them at the beginning of the war. I remember headlines about the bomb squads disarming them, but there was never any story that they would qualify as WMD's or as the "smoking gun".

    <snip>

    If "this" was the WMD "stockpiles" we were truly "looking for" then why is it still classified? Powell's initial briefing on Weapons had site pictures and everything...so it wasn't because it was too secret to release that we found something.


    Unfortunately it was weaponized. I am not claiming that we found all that we are looking for. In fact the point of Blix's statement here was that we HAVE NOT found it. But THAT is the problem. Saddam was supposed to show us how he disposed of it, and instead he first tried to confiscate the proof that it existed and then tried to claim he destroyed it (there is absolutely no evidence that it was destroyed). The question still remains - WHERE IS IT? (SYRIA??)

    From the earlier link to Hans Blix's United Nations address:

    UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.

    There are also indications that the agent was weaponised.
    Last edited by Constitutionally Speaking; 10-28-2010 at 07:07 AM.
    I long for the days when our President actually liked our country.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Senior Member Constitutionally Speaking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post

    I guess CS, this justification for invasion, occupation and nationbuilding and 4000 American soldier deaths just hits a nerve with me. Because for so long we've been bogged down trying to nationbuild this podunk M.E. nation. Thankfully, I think some conservatives are beginning to realize that you can’t have limited government and a policy of endless occupations. Just like government can't solve problems here at home, it sure as hell can't fix the backward M.E. region.

    I understand this sentiment. I just believe that radical Islam is a real threat and so was Saddam.
    I long for the days when our President actually liked our country.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Zoomie djones520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    10,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Constitutionally Speaking View Post
    I understand this sentiment. I just believe that radical Islam is a real threat and so was Saddam.
    I'm reading a book right now that is examining the doctrine of joint operations in the post-cold war era.

    The author included a blurb about the idea of preemptive action (namely about Iraq). It said that the big-whigs at the top were all in agreement that while Iraq posed no immediate threat (within a year or two), with the evolving war on terrorism, there was little doubt that Saddam's regime was going to be a major supplier of money, arms, and training, and with the questionable intelligence about his WMD capablities...

    We already had plenty of proof that he was doing that, and the longer there was no action being taken, the more emboldened he was going to be in doing it. Eventually, another 9/11 would have occured, and Saddam very likely would have had his fingerprints on it.

    We weren't talking about a convential threat in the idea of preemptive action. We were talking about a major power aiding an uncoventional attacker against us. That was the basis for the preemptive action, and I fully agree with it.
    Last edited by djones520; 10-28-2010 at 08:22 AM.
    In most sports, cold-cocking an opposing player repeatedly in the face with a series of gigantic Slovakian uppercuts would get you a multi-game suspension without pay.

    In hockey, it means you have to sit in the penalty box for five minutes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    812
    If you wanted to attack radical Islam, and I'm not sure that's even remotely possibly via wars, Iraq was not the hotbed its been made out to be. Saddam kept that shit in check, perhaps maniacally, but if you subscribe to a American-centric world view keeping him in power was not such a bad idea.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Senior Member Constitutionally Speaking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by KhrushchevsShoe View Post
    If you wanted to attack radical Islam, and I'm not sure that's even remotely possibly via wars, Iraq was not the hotbed its been made out to be. Saddam kept that shit in check, perhaps maniacally, but if you subscribe to a American-centric world view keeping him in power was not such a bad idea.
    He kept it under control in his OWN country, but he FUNDED it elsewhere.
    I long for the days when our President actually liked our country.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Constitutionally Speaking View Post
    He kept it under control in his OWN country, but he FUNDED it elsewhere.
    a nuance that is clearly lost on this one dimensional idiot.
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •