Chemical Weapons Explained

SCULLY

Phew - thank God for Donald Rumsfeld... Just as I was beginning to get a bit suspicious about the lack of chemical weapons used during the recent invasion of Iraq, he explain's it all:
The speed of the US advance may have caught Iraq by surprise (so they didn't have time to deploy them)
or
"It is also possible that they decided that they would destroy them prior to a conflict."

It would be funny if it wasn't true...

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12331154,00.html

daveg

I heard that on the radio this morning (They actually played the extract from Rumsfled's speech - thank god they did or I wouldn't have believed it). I nearly laughed all the way to work. Tis worse the US is getting. Makes me wonder where it'll all end ?

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by daveg
Tis worse the US is getting. Makes me wonder where it'll all end ?

Possibly under a big mushroom cloud if they keep going the way they're going.

This is interesting though from that skynews story:

Speaking in New York, Mr Rumsfeld said: "We'll find out a lot more information as we go along and keep interrogating people."

Maybe someone should explain to him what the weapons inspectors were trying to do, they wouldn't have needed to kill 1000's of civilians to achieve this either.

bonkey

The weapons inspectors interviewed people.
The US is interrogating them.

There is a difference.

jc

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by bonkey
The weapons inspectors interviewed people.
The US is interrogating them.

There is a difference.

jc

True. Do the ends justify the means though, I don't think so anyway.

The Saint

"The weapons inspectors interviewed people.
The US is interrogating them.

There is a difference."


Yeah, a rifle butt in the face and solitary confinement being forced to listen to "I love you, you love me....."

bonkey

Originally posted by Frank_Grimes
True. Do the ends justify the means though, I don't think so anyway.

I'm just clarifying that interrogation is not what the weapons inspectors were trying to do....which could be construed from the wording from the last bit of your post immediately before my first one there.

Call it preventative maintenance. There are too many people in the world who seem to love jumping up and down in righteous indignation that you could propose something as outrageoulsy proposterous as that the Inspectors interrogated people.....and it all goes downhill from there. I'm making sure that the distinction gets pointed out calmly...thats all.

jc

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by bonkey
I'm just clarifying that interrogation is not what the weapons inspectors were trying to do....which could be construed from the wording from the last bit of your post immediately before my first one there.

Call it preventative maintenance. There are too many people in the world who seem to love jumping up and down in righteous indignation that you could propose something as outrageoulsy proposterous as that the Inspectors interrogated people.....and it all goes downhill from there. I'm making sure that the distinction gets pointed out calmly...thats all.

jc

Sorry if it sounded that way, wasn't meant to at all.
All I meant was that they could have (more than likely) obtained this information Rumsfeld is talking about without torture or the huge number of civilian deaths that were caused by their little excursion, had they let the inspectors carry on what they were doing.
I really can't picture Hans Blix beating someone around with a rubber hose trying to get them talk anyway

SCULLY

Donald Rumsfeld said : -
The speed of the US advance may have caught Iraq by surprise (as an explaination to the lack of use of chemical weapons).
Tony Balir said :-
The Iraqi dictator could activate his chemical and biological arsenal in just 45 minutes.

Unless the ''Allies'' (c) transported into Iraq via the Starship Enterprise, something doesn't add up (these guy's were on the same side,right?)

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12331802,00.html

Manach

The Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq's hands were a valid pretext for war, (in my opinion), so I supported the war.
Now however, it seems they did not exist in any real quantities if at all within the past few years.
So, those who did opposed the war were correct in that sense.
Sorry about that
- <rather disillusioned>but surely they are not lieing about the WoM in Iran? </rather disillusioned> :rolleyes:

Hobbes

I thought the point of Iraq was that they destroy all thier WMD. If they did, then what was the point of the war if the US knows that they did it before the war.

Clearly there are wookies on endor, and this doesn't make sense.

*whips out a monkey*

Look at the monkey! Look at the monkey!