Wrong. Read again. Didn't you try the same technique with the looting article last month. Tried to pawn it off as test tubes and when called on it, left the conversation? It wasn't twenty tons of chemical wmd that could kill 80,000 people. These nice young men were on their way to a Martha Stewart white sale with some freindly bleach and got framed. That's what they are on trial for
I've looked up the attack on every news source I can find and they all say it was mostly conventional explosives and sulfuric acid, the only news source I could find that metioned vx is that one editorial, I'm not saying they were good guys, I'm just saying that "20 tons of saddam's WMD" is not exactly what they had, is sulfuric acid a WMD now?
WMD according to Gtech: Sulfuric acid (British English: sulphuric acid), H2SO4, is a strong mineral acid. It is soluble in water at all concentrations. The old name for sulfuric acid was oil of vitriol. Sulfuric acid has many applications, and is produced in larger amounts than any other chemical besides water. World production in 2001 was 165 million tonnes, with an approximate value of $8 billion. Principal uses include fertilizer manufacturing, ore processing, chemical synthesis, wastewater processing, and oil refining. How we should get rid of all POSSIBLE chemical or radiactive material that COULD be used in production of "WMD" 1- close all the universities, hospitals and major industries in USA 2- Attack any country that has hospitals, university or industry
Perhaps reading the article would bring to light that it's not Fox's claim, they were simply reporting on a statement released by the Energy Department: The statement provided only scant details about the material taken from Iraq, but said it included "roughly 1,000 highly radioactive sources" that "could potentially be used in a radiological dispersal device," or dirty bomb. Was there a particular purpose in trying to represent it differently? Sure it does, that was what the report was about. If you think the components were not banned, I welcome any evidence that says they were not banned. Hopefully you'll not take it personally though, if I don't take your word for it. For not guarding. Forgive me if we're talking symantecs. It simply cannot be both ways.
But to prove your point, you simply omitted news source you looked up? I'll help you and gworld out: http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/world/11961452.htm I wonder if the defense team representing these nice young socialites are using the same strategy as you and gworld? Think it will work? Chemical wmd, 80,000 people. No big deal
Thanks for the red rep hrblcantra! I will cherish it forever, or at least until it scrolls off my Control Panel.
Gtech, lets look at your latest post about "WMD" Hydrogen peroxide It is commonly used (in very low concentrations, typically around 5%) to bleach human hair, hence the phrases peroxide blonde and bottle blonde. It burns the skin upon contact in sufficient concentration. In lower concentrations (3%), it is used medically for cleaning wounds and removing dead tissue. The Food and Drug Administration has approved 3% hydrogen peroxide ("Food Grade", or without added chemical stabilisers) for use as a mouthwash. Commercial peroxide solutions (most H2O2 bought over the counter from pharmacies) are not suitable for ingestion as they contain additional harmful chemicals. Some gardeners and hydroponics implementers have professed the value of hydrogen peroxide in their watering solutions. They claim its spontaneous decomposition releases oxygen to the plant that can enhance root development and also help treat root rot, which is cellular root death due to lack of oxygen. Commercial peroxide, as bought at the drugstore in a 3% solution, can be used to remove bloodstains from carpets and clothing. If a few tablespoons of peroxide are poured onto the stain, they will bubble up in the area of the blood. After a few minutes the excess liquid can be wiped up with a cloth or paper towel and the stain will be gone. About 50% of the world's production of hydrogen peroxide in 1994 was used for pulp and paper bleaching. Other bleaching applications are becoming more important as hydrogen peroxide is seen as a more environmentally benign alternative to chlorine based bleaches. Other major industrial applications for hydrogen peroxide include the manufacture of sodium percarbonate and sodium perborate, used as mild bleaches in laundry detergents. In 1994, world production of H2O2 was around 1.9 million tonnes. Great, not only we have to close all the hospitals, universities and industries, we have to close all the hair stylists too and just when I was planning to get a hair cut. The picture of the world after Gtech has cleared it up from every chemical and radioactive material that COULD POSSIBLY be used to produce wmd.
So do you believe that this is the only option that it is material for a dirty bomb? There is no other solution? Even though this is actually very old news and I remember reading about it from UN inspectors back before the war that the materials existed and what existed at these sites. I'm simply stating just because it 'could' be used for a dirty bomb does not make it a dirty bomb now does it? You obviously appear to believe that it does. Many dual 'use' items were not banned, others were known about by the inspectors and tagged, sealed, etc, others broken down to be inoperable. Drawing the conclusion and jumping to WMD from something that can make aspirin without any other proof is a pretty serious jump, sorry I like proof before I believe something not the other way around. It's not my fault that you didn't wish to follow the events until recently, most of what was out there is next to impossible to find now. Most of what is there are random bits of blogs and left/right wing websites to pull up info on, if you don't believe me from what I remember while actually taking an interest in the events the entire way through the process that is your right, it however does not make it correct especially at the huge jumps of faith you are showing for unproven 'facts' even in the articles you post of where you are getting your information. I however will attempt to later tonight when I have time find more info on this, I hope the articles do still exist. Wow realy trying to twist words are we? If Bush felt there were WMD's here then why did he not guard them immediately? If he didn't guard them it realy makes me believe he knew they were not there, especially since the sites had already been inspected. On the other hand if you believed the WMD's were there than yes on this basis I would fault him for not guarding them. I am not trying or insinuating that I want it both ways in one instance I stated it does not back up the pro war commentary 'not my beliefs' on the other post I posted my beliefs. Now instead of disputing or responding to it you avoid it and state having it both ways twice in a row, LOL. I was bringing up common facts for anyone who actually gave a rats ass and followed the events. Some links to the inspections going on before the war that you still do not believe went on include the following: http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/021204-iraq01.htm http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/030104inspectiraq.html "sufficiently credible" evidence that WMDs may have been moved there. You take 'sufficiently credible evidence that WMD's 'MAY' have been moved as strong evidence that they were? I read the article showing more points on why 'it was unlikely' to have happened, it only leaves in a few spots that it 'might' have happened. Where are you getting this strong evidence from the article might I ask?
Doesn't this story itself contradict the 20 tons of of saddams wmd? Not following, not ripping on it either trying to understand where you are going with it.
gworld, so you are suggesting that al qaida members were waltzing around with 20 tons of chemical wmd that could kill 80,000 people were really misunderstood. They were simply being good samaratans and bringing forth personal hygiene products for the masses? We should kindness, sympathy and understanding to the terrorists because they are simply misunderstood. They just stopped by the local drug store and purchased 10 tons of chemical wmd to hand out as personal hygiene products to the local people. Along the way, they stopped off at a hospital and picked up another 10 tons from their large multi-million ton stash that every hospital has. Buying a bottle of peroxide at the local drug store is no comparison to 20 tons of chemicals that could kill 80,000 people. Is that the point you were hoping to make. Think about what you are doing, though I'm sure (based upon your history of doing so) you are fully aware. The al qaida members were a part of a _________ group. You are defending their ________ plot by insinuating they are just common items bought from the local drug store. You are defending the _________'s intent and actions. Keyword: terrorist. Once again, gworld resorts to defending terrorists. Why do you defend terrorists, gworld? From a different perspective. Pretend you found the 20 tons of chemical wmd in Bush's backyard. I bet from that angle, you certainly wouldn't be defending a foiled chemical attack that could kill 80,000 people. If only gworld were part of the defense team for these nice young fellas, the court would not only dismiss their case, but justify the 20 tons of chemical wmd they had. In addition, they would force the local police to attend sensitivity training on how to better understand known terrorists with 20 tons of chemical wmd. Just because someone drives up in trucks filled with chemicals that can take out 80,000 people doesn't mean they were not really there to bring mouthwash to the local people. Yea, I bet the defense team would get them off just like that with your wise reasoning heh!
You have to post the picture first and then we all look for him in his little red and white stripped hat. Wait. nevermind.
Is that what you are getting out of it? That the report was really fabricated to clear saddam from wmd charges?
What the hell is chemical WMD ? There is no chemical that is called WMD. It can sound good to use it for you because your postings lack logic, but it doesn't make any sense. Do you mean Sulfuric Acid? Do you mean Hydrogen prexoide? Majority of checmicals can be used to destroy human life or destruction of property, have you ever thought what happens if a gas station explodes? Should we stop using cars and close all the gas stations? Do you mean that USA attacked Iraq to stop the production of sulfuric acid and hydrogen prexoide, so they can't use it as weapon by smuggling it to USA? If this is your reasoning then it is pretty stupid since both chemical can be found or purchased in USA.
Why it's just simple mouth wash, picked up at the local drug store! Everyone knows that, silly Why else would they be locked up and on trial?
Besides, where would Iraq have gotten these chemical weapons from? All of the ones the US sold them were used up in the 80's- right?
Wow do you jump through hoops to? I was simply stating this article contradicts the previous article you posted to show saddam involvement in this case. I was asking you where you were going with it, and instead again you attack?
According to gworld, saddam had a huge contract with the manufacturers of Scope. Most likely he used all of his mouthwash supplies to knock out local bands of circus midgets that were causing grief in the turnip fields.