Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The phrase "WMD" usually went alongside mushroom-cloud imagery in the public imagination, news stories, etc. Chemical weapons by themselves aren't that significant; they have been around for over a century and lots of countries have them.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 21 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,549 posts, read 16,536,658 times
Reputation: 6032
its already 4 to one so im going to end this experiment.
the NYT's reported tonight that Chemical weapons were found in Mosel.
The top trending topic for the last hour(on twitter) has been WMD's
My argument is simple. In every speech i have seen of President Bush talking about Iraq, both pre and post invasion. The phrase WMD seemed to stand for Nukes and chemical weapons were set aside in their own category of weapon.
Many conservatives seem to be taking this as a vindication/exoneration of President Bush.
Heck, even the NY Times article(its behind a paywall, thats why im not posting it, link doesnt work) even says it was found in 2004, and yet here in 2006, the President clearly states he was wrong.
I have continued to point this out to Conservatives, and yet their argument is that he meant all along that the 2 were one in the same(which wouldnt make sense for him to admit he was wrong) or claim it is a conspiracy theory and that the Army hated him and wanted his down fall.
its already 4 to one so im going to end this experiment.
the NYT's reported tonight that Chemical weapons were found in Mosel.
The top trending topic for the last hour has been WMD's
My argument is simple. In every speech i have seen of President Bush talking about Iraq, both pre and post invasion. The phrase WMD seemed to stand for Nukes and chemical weapons were set aside in their own category of weapon.
Many conservatives seem to be taking this as a vindication/exoneration of President Bush.
Heck, even the NY Times article(its behind a paywall, thats why im not posting it, link doesnt work) even says it was found in 2004, and yet here in 2006, the President clearly states he was wrong.
I have continues to point this out to Conservatives, and yet their argument is that he meant all along that the 2 were one in the same(which wouldnt make sense for him to admit he was wrong) or claim it is a conspiracy theory and that the Army hated him and wanted his down fall.
You all decide.
I could be wrong, but that link says Saddam had the capacity to make WMD, so unless he postulated that Iraq had a nuclear program he could not have been talking about nukes. I don't recall ever hearing about nukes in Iraq in my gov or history classes though.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 21 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,549 posts, read 16,536,658 times
Reputation: 6032
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
I can tell you as a retired member of the military, that WMD has always stood for any type of weapon that can cause mass casualties...
be it nuclear, biological, or chemical
even the UN weapons inspectors were talking about sarin and VX
I fully understand that argument, but in context, President Bush separated the 2(like people do with Drugs and alcohol even though alcohol is a drug).
And in the Video(which again is from 2006), the President Clearly says
Quote:
" The main reason we went into iraq at the time, was because we thought he had Weapons of Mass Destruction.....Turns out he didnt ....."
Those are the words right out of the Presidents mouth in August of 2006, 2 full years after the military says it found these chemical weapons.
The argument that he meant chemical, biological and nuclear when he said WMD doesnt make sense. That would mean either he lied in 2006, Or (as one of my conservative conspiracy theory friends put it) the military was lying to him.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 21 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,549 posts, read 16,536,658 times
Reputation: 6032
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679
I could be wrong, but that link says Saddam had the capacity to make WMD, so unless he postulated that Iraq had a nuclear program he could not have been talking about nukes. I don't recall ever hearing about nukes in Iraq in my gov or history classes though.
You dont need Yellow cake uranium to make a chemical or biological weapon.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
