CNN Reporting Bin Laden is dead

[NotNow]

avoiding a basic question arising from your posts is way more childish.

Do you think that Saddam Hussein had the weapons of Mass Destruction that Bush accused him of having?

I am avoiding nothing.  I made a statement of fact, not an argument.  If you think the fact is wrong, prove it.  Your resultant hissy fit and series of questions and demands means nothing, and requires no action from me.

[NotNow]

But now it seems even facts are not welcome.

[NotNow]

Sneakily changed my post.

In the classical sense of the word, the answer is "no". Yellowcake is no more a WMD than a drum full of coffee creamer (which is explosive) if you can't do anything with it.

He had left over nerve gas shells from forever ago that couldn't have been fired. (I'm assuming you've seen the pictures of those shells, right?) Which wouldn't amount to nothing more than a weapon of mass annoyance in the fact that they were so rusted and leaking that they probably didn't have much potency.

I find both of those facts to be hardly the basis for invading a country. And why the hell are we talking about Iraq anyway? This is a thread about Bin Laden being dead. Which is a good thing, but some right wingers are so intent on sticking their heads in the sand and screaming "LALALALALA" that they can't see the benefit of the guy being dead, or they don't want "our side" to be awarded the victory that bush stated "I really just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you." (direct quote.)

I find the fact that my quote was changed to be pretty revealing.  Honest exchange anyone?

River,

Yellow cake in fine powder is an inhalant risk.  Coffee creamer, by itself in a drum, is not explosive.  It is a fuel which must be mixed within its explosive limits in air in order to "detonate".  YCU is very dangerous when ingested, as I am sure you know.  If you have the education that you seem to, then you know the differences between YCU and depleted uranium as well.  DU as used by the military in ammunition and armor has been studied for half a century. 

[NotNow]

RiversideLoki,

I have been told that you must have changed the quote in reply #220.  Frankly, I had not expected such an action by you based on my past exchanges with you.  Is this true?  And of course I would expect a correction and apology if so.

[NotNow]

uninteresting.

And far less interesting than your claim that saddam used yellow cake as a nuclear device against the Kurds

I have made no such claim.  Would you like to retract this statement?

[johnnyroadglide]

Those are not my words Chris. They came from DOD. I said I was not going to get into a debate about this Chris. And I'm not. You believe what you want and I will believe what I want.

Then post the DOD's words for us. Otherwise your ship sunk before it left the dock.

And, FWIW, saying "I'm not going to get into a debate" after dropping some absurd nonsense doesn't accomplish anything other than signaling to everyone else that you're not only wrong, but that you actually knew you were wrong when you said it, and are now just trying to foreclose others from pointing out that you haven't (or in this case, can't) back up your viewpoint. Absurd.

I did post the DOD's words Chris but obviously being a gator that wasn't obvious to you. And there is no sense in wasting my time or your time in debating a topic that neither side is going to change the otherrs mind. Its simply not worth the effort. Good day.

[ben says]

I think everyone is missing the point...whether Iraq had nukes or yellow cake is irrelevant. There are dozens of countries w/ nukes. More with yellow cake. When did the USA sign up to be the world's police force? Why isn't every sovereign nation allowed to have what we have? There is no justification for war! End of story...

[tufsu1]

If anyone wants to continue arguing this, answer the simple question; Did Saddam have WMDs or not?

fine...I'll play...at one time, YES...he used them on his own people!

Mustard gas isn't any more of a "WMD" than bullets or bombs, Tufsu. It's a perversion of the term.

not to argue this too much, but my understanding is that chemical weapons are considered WMD...and that always useful source, Wikipedia (and apparently the US Military), agrees

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction

[Jimmy]

Chemical weapons absolutely are weapons of mass destruction.  This has been included within the WMD term for quite some time.

[hillary supporter]

Chris,.. what do you think Bush's real reason for the invasion of Iraq, was?  I always was under the impression that it had to do with oil, since he is in the oil business... not really the events of 9/11.

I remember a NY times ed by british PM Tony Blair that said probably the most important point of the invasion was that by confronting such a draconian, evil dictator to turn back and give in on the terms would give a signal to all such evil leaders in the world that they could continue to oppress their people at their own desire.

[Jimmy]

Chemical weapons absolutely are weapons of mass destruction.  This has been included within the WMD term for quite some time.

and?

How much yellow cake goes into one of them?

LOL, none that I know of.  That wasn't the issue I was answering.  Someone incorrectly stated that chemical weapons aren't those of mass destruction.  I wasn't weighing back in on yellowcake.  President Bush lied about that.  It's unnecessary to put forth an ignorant argument about WMD in order to show that Bush lied.

[BridgeTroll]

 

Hey everybody!!! CNN is reporting.... Bin Laden is DEAD!

[tufsu1]

In order to be considered a WMD it has to comply with two elements of the definition.

A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that
1.  can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans (and other life forms)

and/or

2.  cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general.

The attacks referred to by TUFSU don't comply with both elements of the definition, and certainly don't meet the scale requirements of the second.

the term 'and/or' means that the second element must be present in all cases, but that the first element (loss of life) isnt required.

while I can see how one could interpret the and/or statement that way, I have not always used it in that way

and as to your other questions, I never said Saddam had yellow cake (obviously Bush lied)...but I satnd by my statement at one time he did have WMD

[ben says]

You know who has more WMDs than every single country on earth combined right?? Yeah...we do....what hypocrites...

[johnnyroadglide]

Whats really sad about this whole thread is that its started after I complimented Pres Obama by saying I felt he was telling the truth about OBL because it was just too big a deal to get caught in a lie. And thats the first time I can recall I have ever said anything nice about Obama. Boy did this thing get turned 180 degrees.