Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/4/2006 3:04:06 PM EDT
They were used in an attack on a coalition convoy. I can't remember the timeframe.



Link Posted: 1/4/2006 3:28:51 PM EDT
IIRC, they were found to have "traces of Sarin", at least according to the oh-so-brief coverage the MSM gave it.

Which of course, still means that there were never any WMD's in Iraq, and the war is all Bush's fault.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 3:46:54 PM EDT
I believe there were trace amounts left in them, meaning that they were pre-'91 Gulf War issue shells.

They've found a bunch of things like that, but you ain't going to hear about it on CBS, NBC, or ABC.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 3:48:04 PM EDT
I really love how WMDs = NUKES early on and now WMDs = anything close to even being an outdoors-viable area effect weapon.

Link Posted: 1/4/2006 3:50:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Tostitos:
I really love how WMDs = NUKES early on and now WMDs = anything close to even being an outdoors-viable area effect weapon.




Hmm, nice misrepresentation of facts. How's DUh these days?
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 3:51:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2006 3:52:37 PM EDT by pale_pony]

Originally Posted By Tostitos:
I really love how WMDs = NUKES early on and now WMDs = anything close to even being an outdoors-viable area effect weapon.



A Weapon of Mass Destruction is just what it says that it is. It is a weapon that is capable of taking out a mass of people. A mass of people can be any number more than one.

What else is there to say?

Edited to add: You wouldn't be so obvious if you'd just spring for a membership.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 3:51:49 PM EDT
Right, anyone who likes to poke fun at how the media hyped things is automatically from DU, regardless of their opinion on what we're doing in Iraq.

How many DUers start a business catering to RKBArs, sparky?
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 3:52:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By pale_pony:

Originally Posted By Tostitos:
I really love how WMDs = NUKES early on and now WMDs = anything close to even being an outdoors-viable area effect weapon.



A Weapon of Mass Destruction is just what it says that it is. It is a weapon that is capable of taking out a mass of people. A mass of people can be any number more than one.

What else is there to say?



To that, all I can say is "no shit, sherlock", ever since he gassed the Kurds we've known he's had that sort of thing.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 3:55:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Tango7:
IIRC, they were found to have "traces of Sarin", at least according to the oh-so-brief coverage the MSM gave it.

Which of course, still means that there were never any WMD's in Iraq, and the war is all Bush's fault.




The traces of Sarin were due to the shell being "binary". Sarin has a poor shelf life, so the Iraqis (and many others) use a design that mixes in flight. Since the shell was detonated on the ground, and totally not the way it was designed to go boom, the chemicals didn't mix properly. Hence why there were only traces. Most of the material never mixed.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 3:56:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Tostitos:
Right, anyone who likes to poke fun at how the media hyped things is automatically from DU, regardless of their opinion on what we're doing in Iraq.

How many DUers start a business catering to RKBArs, sparky?



It seemed like you were "poking fun" at President Bush to me.

Here, watch this and pass the link around until it truly sinks in that EVERYBODY though Saddam still had WMDs in his arsenal.

Link
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 3:57:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2006 3:57:10 PM EDT by bigscrun]
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 3:58:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By pale_pony:

Originally Posted By Tostitos:
I really love how WMDs = NUKES early on and now WMDs = anything close to even being an outdoors-viable area effect weapon.



A Weapon of Mass Destruction is just what it says that it is. It is a weapon that is capable of taking out a mass of people. A mass of people can be any number more than one.

What else is there to say?

Edited to add: You wouldn't be so obvious if you'd just spring for a membership.



Like napalm or fuel air bombs?
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 3:59:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SoCalJBT:

Originally Posted By Tostitos:
Right, anyone who likes to poke fun at how the media hyped things is automatically from DU, regardless of their opinion on what we're doing in Iraq.

How many DUers start a business catering to RKBArs, sparky?



It seemed like you were "poking fun" at President Bush to me.

Here, watch this and pass the link around until it truly sinks in that EVERYBODY though Saddam still had WMDs in his arsenal.

Link



I'll poke fun at him until he stops playing 'goatse' for Vincente Fox- capiche?
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 4:00:27 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 4:02:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Tostitos:
I really love how WMDs = NUKES early on and now WMDs = anything close to even being an outdoors-viable area effect weapon.





Tell that to the Kurds.....oh wait....they were killed by an "outdoors-viable area effect weapon"

Link Posted: 1/4/2006 4:17:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By leo6223:

Originally Posted By Tostitos:
I really love how WMDs = NUKES early on and now WMDs = anything close to even being an outdoors-viable area effect weapon.





Tell that to the Kurds.....oh wait....they were killed by an "outdoors-viable area effect weapon"




Yeah, Sarin and cyanide. Just the kid stuff.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 4:55:33 PM EDT
the intel/saftey briefings we got in the begining of the summer (of 04) stated that some had been used in ieds against convoys, with intel pointin to a guess that someone had dug them up somewhere thinking they were regular HE shells, and had set them up expecting them to explode.

as a result we had to lug of friggin nbc gear on every convoy for about 2 months, before our commander decided it was pointless.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 6:07:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GlockLuvinRedleg:
the intel/saftey briefings we got in the begining of the summer (of 04) stated that some had been used in ieds against convoys, with intel pointin to a guess that someone had dug them up somewhere thinking they were regular HE shells, and had set them up expecting them to explode.

as a result we had to lug of friggin nbc gear on every convoy for about 2 months, before our commander decided it was pointless.



Thanks for you and Spade the refresher - I thought it had something to do with an IED, but wasn't sure.

Be safe, and thanks for your service
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 6:16:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Tostitos:
I really love how WMDs = NUKES early on and now WMDs = anything close to even being an outdoors-viable area effect weapon.





Produced by the Monterey Institute's Center for Nonproliferation Studies

Updated September 2005

The most widely used definition of "weapons of mass destruction" in official U.S. documents is "nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons."



WMD did not suddenly come to mean things other than nuclear.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 6:23:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:


WMD did not suddenly come to mean things other than nuclear.



+1

Tostitos is just ing..........again.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 6:31:21 PM EDT
Ok. Right. That assertation is hampered only by the tiny little facts that I think what we were doing in Iraq was long overdue.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 6:50:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2006 6:50:53 PM EDT by SoCalJBT]

Originally Posted By Tostitos:
Ok. Right. That assertation is hampered only by the tiny little facts that I think what we were doing in Iraq was long overdue.



Well, then, you're batting .500.

You were wrong about what the early definition of WMD was, and you're right on about going into Iraq being overdue.

Keep it going and we'll see what your final score is.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 7:02:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Originally Posted By Tostitos:
I really love how WMDs = NUKES early on and now WMDs = anything close to even being an outdoors-viable area effect weapon.





Produced by the Monterey Institute's Center for Nonproliferation Studies

Updated September 2005

The most widely used definition of "weapons of mass destruction" in official U.S. documents is "nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons."



WMD did not suddenly come to mean things other than nuclear.




As long as I can remember WMB has refered to a NBC threat.

Chris
Top Top