Now I see! It had to be the exact wmds we were initially looking for, in order for it to have importance and meaning. How in the hell could I not have caught on to that? What a festival!
Wife's home, gotta head out for some shopping. Thanks for the fun! I haven't done so much laughing in a long time! Thanks for cheering me up! Till next time... ... don't forget to rinse with your favorite chemical wmd (Scope) after brushing your teeth!
No, we shouldn't be so small minded, let call any type of chemical or anything radioactive a WMD and then say we were right, Iraq had WMD.
You're calling commonly manufactured and used chemicals "WMDs"... Do you know how stupid that is? The entire point these guys are trying to make is that you can buy those chemicals most likely anywhere in the world and use them as a "WMD" and that Iraq's possession of these chemicals IS NOT A REASON TO INVADE THEM, nor is there any proof they were even being used as weapons. Do any of your links show any proof that these chemicals were being stolen and used as "WMDs" BEFOR we invaded iraq and it became a country without any laws or order?
What I want to know is why we don't go to the places that actually NEED us where people are in FAR WORSE conditions than Iraqi's ever were under saddam. http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs1054 Now that theres no "WMD" nuclear bomb making labs we seem to care sooo much about "liberating" and making Iraqi's free... or is the real reason we're there much more strategic...
some people have nothing better to do than whine and gripe over everything constructive! These people that are out there protesting are the same toup of wack jobs that are seting car dealerships on fire!
You should pass that along to al qaida's defense attorneys. As powerful an observation you present, I bet they'll not only get off with no time in prison, but pocket a good 100,000 each. Something like that, right?
yeah gtech thats what they are sayiing, if you use a common chemical to kill some one its not illegal, you hit the nail on the head yeah I'm going to burn some hummers tonight with my homeosexual communist friends, and we jsut going to dance, dance , dance and have abortions to the light of that fire
Gtech i've been searching for hours now, however I still can only find the one expert claiming it was VX because he felt not that he knew it was VX simply because it's the easiest to use in the field. If this is the case than it's his hypothesis and not a fact. I still am not saying you're wrong, simply that most articles I'm finding don't support it, but I will continue to search on this. It's also kind of funny the only pages listing the VX are small right wing blogs and publishers, nothing from any substantial news company even Fox news yet.
I know some people in mass graves that might disagree with you. Republicans can only take care of so much of the world's problem. Now if whiney, lazy, self-centered, individualistic, lying liberals ever decided to serve something greater than their own self-interests, it might just be possible to do more. But it's not like self-centered liberals rush out to serve their country. Their role is whining and crying about why something isn't being done to their satisfaction.
Certainly the text where the snippet was inserted in your article you posted before is as follows which I have found on multiple sites in my hours of searching. If I find a different site stating 'vx' in the plot which does not include information coming from this same comment which I have been finding over and over I'll gladly post it, so far though I have not.
Then my question is why those who are so interested in helping there don't start getting involved rather than leaning back and complaining that someone else won't do it first ...
I'm not a liberal but come on what does this have to do with anything, what a bunch of trash and people wonder why so many don't like so called republicans or liberals anymore.
Thanks, this is what I was referring to: It gave me the impression you had found something else because of what you assert he says. Is that not the case?
Gtech so you honestly are telling me that since 1 expert who never actually has any first hand knowledge with the chemicals stated he believes it to be VX simply because it's the easiest to use in the field this is good enough for you to claim it is VX. If that's the case I'm done here, it's obvious you have no interest in changing your mind on anything. An expert stating he 'thinks' it to be, simply because it's the easiest to use does not make it so. It might be true, there might be a story out there that actually proves it, but if this is what you're basing your argument on it's beyond pathetic. I am still very willing to listen to anything you have to say, but to base your arguments you have in the past few pages off of a hypothesis and not fact by one single man does not hold any water, kind of like the NO levee system
Get involved in what way? All my tax dollars that could be feeding those people are being spent on Iraq Lets see... Thats $80 billion (first link i found with a number, so if it's supposedly "biased" we can just say billions) and change in 2005 alone that could be feeding MILLIONS OF STARVING africans and could have prevented tons of deaths. Instead it's being spent KILLING MORE PEOPLE.
What I was asking for, was a reference to where he said what you claimed he said. I took the opportunity to bold what you said he claimed. There seems to be a consistent pattern of replying that article xyz said something, but when reviewing it, it does not. I've noted 4-5 of these today already. Because of that pattern, I simply asked you to provide a reference for what you claimed he said. Can you do that? Where does he say what you claim he says?