It's Ok When Democrats Say It

[RobDownSouth]

Our military alluded to them being shipped into Syria, but you libs would have none of it then.

Still no evidence of Iraq WMDs in Syria or anywhere else, despite nearly ten years of blather from you to the contrary.

Must be that "Marine Corps Honor" that prevents you from admitting you were wrong.

 

[Beco]

Syria has admitted having six or seven chemical warfare plants. They're one of only seven nations who are not signatory to the Chemical Weapons Ban so the plants are entirely legal, and they claim they need chemical weapons as a safeguard against Israel's nuclear program.

Syria has hinted in the past that they will sign the Chemical Weapons Ban just as soon as Israel signs the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

I'm wondering if they will drop those WMD's on their own people....wouldnt surprise me.

 

[GuiltyPleasure]

I'm wondering if they will drop those WMD's on their own people....wouldnt surprise me.

Certainly more efficient than their present method.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean]

If there were no WMDs in Iraq why did everyone say there were prior to George Bush being elected?

There were at one time, no-one disputes that chemicals were used on the Kurds. However, Blix and co were bang on the money when they said Iraq no longer had WMDs. Bushco didn't want to hear that.

 

[Peregrinator]

Our military alluded to them being shipped into Syria, but you libs would have none of it then.

Further evidence that I'm not a "lib," I guess. I've been saying for years that there were some WMD's, though probably not many/much, that they went to Syria in those famous trucks, and that Saddam didn't have what he thought he had because his own people were so afraid of him that they lied to him all the time.

 

[unregistered]

 

[phrodeau]

Some of Iraq's WMD's went to Syria, but it didn't matter then, there's not enough to be concerned about now, and the Democrats just want to act like World Policemen.

Did I get it right?

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[semen4her]

lol.

Am i the only one that comprehends english?

 

[phrodeau]

Read the opening post. Hillary Clinton is worried.

And what, exactly? Do you think there's nothing to worry about?

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Beco]

Furry foot and Seanh were smarter than the UN and all of those Democrats...

Well, he did, in a thread a few years ago, call himself exceptional, so yeah, he is smarter than the UN!

 

[RobDownSouth]

Furry foot and Seanh were smarter than the UN and all of those Democrats...

The UN was misled into believing that Dubya would seek a resolution committing troops to armed conflict. When Dubya and company realized they didn't have the votes in the UN, they backpedaled and claimed that the previous resolution permitted armed intervention. The way of the coward: George W. Bush and Vetteman.

"Those Democrats" were only shown the "stovepiped" information, which supported the administration position. Contrary positions remained classified. The way of the coward: George W. Bush and Vetteman.

 

[Beco]

Certainly more efficient than their present method.[/QUOTE

Probably right...

 

[KingOrfeo]

I'm wondering if they will drop those WMD's on their own people....wouldnt surprise me.

Well, that's an important difference. W justified invading Iraq on the grounds that Hussein had WMDs and he might use them -- not on his own people, but on his neighbors; which, of course, his personal track record of attacking his neighbors (and his own people) made an easy thing to believe of him. In this case, the only country Syria ever invades is Lebanon (they haven't fought Israel directly since 1973), and I can't see the Syrians using WMDs on them in any situation, Beirut is upwind from Damascus, and not far from it, either. Unless Assad has gone crazy and decided to finish off Israel once and for all, the only conceivable use he has for WMDs is in putting down rebellion . . . but that would do even worse damage to the country he's trying to rule than using them on any neighbor would.

Unless they're . . . Is there such a thing as (non-nuclear) tactical WMDs, that might conceivably be used on troops in the field without damage to non-combat areas? Or does the definition of "mass destruction" rule that out?

 

[garbage can]

Isn't that where all of Iraq's WMD's ended up?

Good point, Phro.

An ideal place.

 

[Sean]

You don't know what you're talking about Sean. Blix alluded to 6500 Iraqi WMDs he couldn't account for but knew of their existence through documentation.

Check the Democrat statements about Iraq's WMDs here:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Iraqi Vice Air Marshal Georges Sada in 2006 said he knew those, "who were involved in smuggling the WMDs out of Iraq in 2002 and 2003...I know how and when they were transported and shipped out of Iraq [including] how many aircraft were actually used and what types of planes were used."

Georges Sada, Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied and Survived Saddam Hussein (Brentwood, TN: Integrity Publishers, 2006) 1,2.

I couldn't give a flying fuck what Democrats in Congress said or didn't. And all of a sudden you want to start believing Saddam's officers when they're telling you exactly what you want to hear.

BTW, a quick look at Integrity Publishers of TN doesn't exactly fill one with confidence in their truthiness as a source.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Isn't that where all of Iraq's WMD's ended up?

No, they ended up in Mordor.

 

[Beco]

Well, that's an important difference. W justified invading Iraq on the grounds that Hussein had WMDs and he might use them -- not on his own people, but on his neighbors; which, of course, his personal track record of attacking his neighbors (and his own people) made an easy thing to believe of him. In this case, the only country Syria ever invades is Lebanon (they haven't fought Israel directly since 1973), and I can't see the Syrians using WMDs on them in any situation, Beirut is upwind from Damascus, and not far from it, either. Unless Assad has gone crazy and decided to finish off Israel once and for all, the only conceivable use he has for WMDs is in putting down rebellion . . . but that would do even worse damage to the country he's trying to rule than using them on any neighbor would.

Unless they're . . . Is there such a thing as (non-nuclear) tactical WMDs, that might conceivably be used on troops in the field without damage to non-combat areas? Or does the definition of "mass destruction" rule that out?

No way would Assad attack Israel....well, I'd bet against it......Assad is having trouble with his own people, and I dont think he is that crazy... but you forgot to metion big bad Colin Powell who somehow escapes all this wrath of inepitude by convincing the world that an invasion was a good thing....funny, his name doesnt seem to ever come up when discussing Bush/Iraq

 

[unregistered]

 

[phrodeau]

There wasn't anything to worry about when all that was important was taking down Bush.

Conditions in Syria have changed in recent months, Rip Van Winkle.