That's what I'm asking of you. Did you read it? Because what you assert and what Colonel asserts are entirely different: So a full bird Colonel and the rest of the Army doesn't know how it breaks down, but you toss some numbers out off the top of your head? Help me understand this. So you disagree with Colonel Chu then? You'd have no problem giving 500 rounds of sarin and mustard gas, so that those chemicals could be extracted and used to create a dirty bomb, and use it on your fellow soldiers? So now we're going to compare mustard and sarin to bleach? How much lower can we go?
Probably hoping to become a general in an administration that surrounds itself with YES man. But it is doesn't change the fact that the President( much higher than a colonel) said: Queen Gtech is a joke and there was no WMD in Iraq.
This was written by Scott Ritter who was the UN arms inspector in Iraq from 1991-8: http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue34/finger34.htm Sometimes scientists know a wee bit more about chemicals then soldiers do...
Ritter was also a pedophile. I'm sure gworld can appreciate that. I prefer verifiable sources, not opinion pieces.
Are you saying Bush is a pedophile too or just incompetent liar? Bush says queen Gtech is a joke and there was no WMD in Iraq. Who do you think knows more and is better informed, you or Bush?
You've posted opinion peices before (if you don't believe me I can cite some )... How about a post from berkeley? http://tiger.berkeley.edu/sohrab/politics/ritter_conversation.html
Yes, please cite some. Maybe from the global warming list I posted this morning? Knock yourself out. So you want to stick with the pedophile over an Army Colonel and use Berkeley, of all places, to do so? Good Lord, I've seen it all now I'll never understand why some go so far to protect saddam from his wmd. It baffles science.
That pedophile is 12 years veteran of Marine Corps and a Republican. Let's stick to none of them and take the word of U.S. President who says: Queen Gtech is talking out of his A*s and there was no WMD in Iraq.
Pop quiz time, Keith. (I put gworld on ignore, as I'm not interested in reading about his sexual obsessions with children anymore) Gworld's favorite terrorist bud, jose padilla, an al qaida terrorist whom gworld actually started a thread seeking sympathy and support for, was arrested for plotting a dirty bomb attack on the US. In the following article, what material is noted to be used in creating a dirty bomb, and how many tons of it were found in Iraq?
I just remembered; you posted this link also, (http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1806583&postcount=196) (6th link) ... And that contradicts the other (earlier) link you posted about the sarin attack on troops... Hmm...
1) no one's protecting saddam... 2) Questioning your government keeps them honest... As mark twain put it: "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it"
Now that I'm looking back on it; that really irk's me... You posted about a roadside bomb attack containing sarin, near our troops: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=4039976&postcount=50 Then I posted a link from a news story in 2005 (a year after you link was published) that says "No chemical weapons are known to have been used so far in Iraq's insurgency.": http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=4040034&postcount=52 Then you say: "Incorrect. It simply means whoever was writing the article was not informed." here: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=4040089&postcount=53 But on November 24th of 2006 you cited that same link: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1806583&postcount=196 So it's ok when you use the link, but incorrect when I use it?
The funny thing is that the only pedophile mentioned here is a 12 years veteran of Marine Corp and a Republican. The queen of cheerleaders put his tails between his legs and run after Bush declares: There are some morons like Gtech who still say there was WMD in Iraq even when president declares that there was no WMD.
I'm having a hard time believing you would intentionally be this obtuse. So let's cut straight to the chase... Do you believe I was using the link in question to illustrate an obscure claim of "No chemical weapons are known to have been used so far in Iraq's insurgency." Or, do you believe I posted it in regards to the additional chemical weapons that were found, that you suggest do not exist? Which one makes most sense to you, from my perspective? Someone's going to extraordinary lengths to protect him. I wonder who those people are? Wilfull denial? Did I miss your question, the "allegations" against your government, hidden under the guise of being a question? What question do you claim you have? So you are willfully being obtuse then. I sort of figured that, given your history. So, you believe that a statement of opinion about chemical weapons not having been used, in an article about chemical weapons you claim do not exist, but were found, but were not found, dismisses the fact that a year earlier, US soldiers were treated for injuries sustained from a chemical wmd explosion? And you say you actually served our country? Is this what they teach soldiers these days, or are you simply the exception? And you claim no one is protecting saddam
Keith, were wmd found, or were they not found? I must have missed your answer to that pop quiz above. Will you be ignoring it like Colonel Chu?
Will you be ignoring President Bush? Queen Gtech says Bush is incompetent liar for saying there was no WMD in Iraq and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
You're missing the point, you cited an article months ago, then when I cited it, you claimed he was uninformed. So he's conveniently informed about topics when you decide to cite the source, then when I do, the same guy is misinformed in the exact same article? That's a pretty lousy way to debate someone...
No. There were no active, and independent, weapons of mass destruction found. They did find EXPIRED chemical agents (1991 era) and other components that could have been later used to create something more dangerous... But I have yet to see a shred of evidence that Iraq had any active (unexpired) nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons that, by themselves could honestly be called WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
So you are wanting to change the definition of WMD to fit your agenda?? Do you think that Chemical agents are perfectly safe after their "expiration date"? Are the canisters stamped with an "expiration date"? If not, how do we know these dates? Would you expose yourself to "expired Sarin gas"? Just want to be clear on your position here....
I'm not changing any definitions: http://www.nti.org/f_wmd411/f1a1.html I don't see where the disconnect is... There is no evidence showing that Iraq had produced any of these since the '91 era... Of course, there are opinion pieces stating otherwise, and news stories, that have reported all kinds of non-truths...