No you won't. You're far too nice.
But allow me, instead. You know I just don't give a damn.
Posted on 05/17/2004 8:20:19 PM PDT by yatros from flatwater
We will never get that lucky. (DARN IT!)
Sarin sounds like a WMD to me.
What BG Kimmit is describing is a "mix in flight" binary round. While he says that the Iraqs had declared all such rounds destroyed prior to the 1991 Gulf War, that isn't entirely true. The truth is the Iraqis said they never had such rounds. The Iraqis never claimed to have them. The United States never thought they had the capability:Found here.
The U.S. Defense Department’s “Militarily Critical Technologies List” (MCTL) is “a detailed compendium of technologies" that the department advocates as “critical to maintaining superior US military capabilities. It applies to all mission areas, especially counter-proliferation.” Written in 1998, it was recently re-published with updates for 2002.
There was some talk shortly before the first Gulf War that the Iraqis had been creating binary chemical weapons, in which the relatively non-toxic ingredients of the agent remain unmixed until just before the weapon is used; this allows the user to bypass any worry about shelf life or toxicity. But according to the MCTL , “The Iraqis had a small number of bastardized binary munitions in which some unfortunate individual was to pour one ingredient into the other from a Jerry can prior to use” – an action few soldiers were willing to perform.
Note that the referenced article is from Alternet, and it is saying that the US, Ritter, and the UN "knew" that there was no binary weapons capability in Iraq. We know that they didn't have these prior to the Gulf War, and the UN says that they never developed or weaponized any WMD after the Gulf War, under the inspection regime.
Yeah, and Saddam's nuclear facilities were for medical research, too.
"X=the amount of WMDs we find in Iraq.
X+1=The amount of WMDs we will have to find in Iraq to convince the left that Bush told the truth about WMDs.
These equations work for any value of X.
When we found none, the left said "we couldn't even find one." We find a few, and they say we have to find a few more for it to matter. This game could go on forever."
Your equation works for many other things as well. For Instance:
Y= evidence found that Saddam was working with/helping terrorists
Y+1= amount of evidence needed to prove to the left that Saddam was working with/helping terrorists.
No you won't. You're far too nice.
But allow me, instead. You know I just don't give a damn.
Blix the consumate idiot would claim death has nothing to do with dying!
"I a fascinated by the Blix-bashing here at Free Republic.
IMHO No evidence has been produced to prove Blix was wrong on any account?
The whole WMD discussion is moot since the invasion/intervention/pre-emptive action..."
Why? Because you're now losing the argument?
What's that one about "shinola"?? I can never get that one.
"Face it, Bush needs more than one Sarin shell and sixteen empty shell casings to convince the American people that the Iraq War was necessary or wise. According to Rasmussen, only 45% of Americans think we are winning war on terror. Not good for Bush's reelection prospects."
Go take another course in logic: that is a non-sequitur.
Just because 55% of the public doesn't think we're winning or isn't sure, it does not follow that they don't think it was necessary or wise. Nobody with half a brain thought we were winning in the Spring of 1942 either but that didn't mean we thought it was unnecessary or unwise to fight back against Japan and Germany (and Italy).
Besides, how many more than one would it take for you?
This just in:
Hans Blix says pictures, quotes, videotape, interviews of family members of Hans Blix are not evidence of the existence of Hans Blix.
David Kay is saying the same thing. Have to wonder why he picked NPR to discuss it with though.....LOL...think easy interview with no hard pressing questions.......hahahahaha
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1901043
OK, you're probably right. But if you ever get the chance to do it, be sure and give me the details!
Blix said today that the discovery of the nerve agent was not a sign that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed weapons of mass destruction before the war last year.
Aint it funny how a person can say one thing on one day, change his story the next day, and he's STILL believable? Blix needs to experience "panty power"!
Blix is so irrelevant.
Ah, but he IS to the American left and the European hoardes who don't study history!
With his sorry inspection resume I would say he's more than qualified for the job.
-"It doesn't sound absurd at all. There can be debris from the past and that's a very different thing from having stockpiles and supplies," he said."-
Nerve gas is now debris?!?!?
Blix is right; there wasn't any WMD. Syria was borrowing it and is now returning it to its rightful owners.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.