Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 63
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    Of course theres bias in Hoekstra. He's a politician. This isn't a partisan scuffle, but one between the branches.

    And what's misleading about the WMD's that they found in Iraq? Wouldn't you say that "there were no WMD's in Iraq" is now the misleading mantra? Or is this going to fall into one of the infamous "gray areas" liberals like to paint.
    Sigh, of course we actually DID find WMDs in Iraq, and Saddam was actually in league with Osama Bin Ladeen. French people and liberals hate freedom, and it has all been covered up by the left wing mainstream drive by media elite. Double Sigh.
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    Hear what?
    Originally Posted by heberman
    We can only both wish that were to happen. If there are no "checks", there can be no "balances."

    Idiom:
    hear, hear

    Used to express approval.
  3. #43  
    Michael-regarding the Hoestra claims don't you think its a little disingenuous to use the term weapons of mass destruction for material that we know is less toxic than stuff you have under your kitchen sink? The stuff in the Hoefsta claims is not dangerous or destructive, certainly not mass destructive. I empathize with the embarrasment from the massive error in judgement about Sadaam's nuclear and WMD capacities but that should not justify fabrication or exageration
  4. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Sigh, of course we actually DID find WMDs in Iraq, and Saddam was actually in league with Osama Bin Ladeen. French people and liberals hate freedom, and it has all been covered up by the left wing mainstream drive by media elite. Double Sigh.
    Thanks! Thats all it took. We can now be friends
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  5. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Michael-regarding the Hoestra claims don't you think its a little disingenuous to use the term weapons of mass destruction for material that we know is less toxic than stuff you have under your kitchen sink? The stuff in the Hoefsta claims is not dangerous or destructive, certainly not mass destructive. I empathize with the embarrasment from the massive error in judgement about Sadaam's nuclear and WMD capacities but that should not justify fabrication or exageration
    I think Cardio did an excellent job answering this in another thread:

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...8&postcount=90

    But if you're an expert on what makes a WMD, I'll listen.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  6. #46  
    I responded in the other thread.
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    And what's misleading about the WMD's that they found in Iraq? Wouldn't you say that "there were no WMD's in Iraq" is now the misleading mantra? Or is this going to fall into one of the infamous "gray areas" liberals like to paint.
    It is you who is being misleading, and it is the people you support who continue to degrade the term WMD for political purposes. The term was meant to be used to describe weapons that cause significant damage. Seriously, would you say a Sarin based chemical weapon can have the same explosive effect of a nuclear bomb? As for what Bush & company were hoping to find in Iraq, remember that Bush said:

    "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud"

    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    I think Cardio did an excellent job answering this in another thread:link...But if you're an expert on what makes a WMD, I'll listen.
    Oh, so partisan Cardio is an expert? He begins
    Quote Originally Posted by Cardio
    Any chemical munition is considered a WMD.
    lol WRONG
  8. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by g-funkster
    It is you who is being misleading, and it is the people you support who continue to degrade the term WMD for political purposes. The term was meant to be used to describe weapons that cause significant damage. Seriously, would you say a Sarin based chemical weapon can have the same explosive effect of a nuclear bomb? As for what Bush & company were hoping to find in Iraq, remember that Bush said:

    "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud"

    Oh, so partisan Cardio is an expert? He begins lol WRONG
    Care to explain why that statement is wrong. Use the source of your knowledge on weapons and weapons grade chemicals and share with all of us.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  9. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #49  
    WMD=Weapons of Mass Distraction
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Care to explain why that statement is wrong. Use the source of your knowledge on weapons and weapons grade chemicals and share with all of us.
    Give me a break, Cardio. You Said:
    Quote Originally Posted by Cardio
    Any chemical munition is considered a WMD.
    Are you saying that any weapon of any size, as long as it's chemically based, is a weapon of mass destruction? Your blanket statement is false.

    U.S. Code, Title 50 states that, yes chemical weaponry can classify as weapons of mass destruction, but the wording is as follows:

    -----LINK-----
    The term “weapon of mass destruction” means any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of—
    (A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors;
    (B) a disease organism; or
    (C) radiation or radioactivity.
    --------------

    Which implies that it must have a particular level of destructiveness before it can be classified as such.

    Even the (warning: PDF) US Military defines it that way:

    weapons of mass destructionWeapons that are capable of a high order of destruction and/or of being used in such a manner as to destroy large numbers of people. Weapons of mass destruction can be high explosives or nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons,
    Last edited by g-funkster; 07/12/2006 at 01:18 PM.
  11. #51  
    G-Funkster....The question is were they capable of being classified as WMDs while Saddam was actively hiding them or is the classification retro active after they are found and the potency is evaluated? The reason this question is vital is that Bio & Chem weapons do degrade over time. But how they are stored determines if they deteriorate fast or will last and be viable for multiple decades.

    Here are my thoughts to the question of validity of counting these 500 as WMDs:

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showp...&postcount=151
  12. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by g-funkster
    Give me a break, Cardio. You Said:Are you saying that any weapon of any size, as long as it's chemically based, is a weapon of mass destruction? Your blanket statement is false.

    U.S. Code, Title 50 states that, yes chemical weaponry can classify as weapons of mass destruction, but the wording is as follows:

    -----LINK-----
    The term “weapon of mass destruction” means any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of—
    (A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors;
    (B) a disease organism; or
    (C) radiation or radioactivity.
    --------------

    Which implies that it must have a particular level of destructiveness before it can be classified as such.

    Even the (warning: PDF) US Military defines it that way:

    weapons of mass destructionWeapons that are capable of a high order of destruction and/or of being used in such a manner as to destroy large numbers of people. Weapons of mass destruction can be high explosives or nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons,
    Ok, you got me, I guess a firecracker with mustard gas would not classify as a WMD. Puuhhlleese, do you really think that an artillary shell filled with a chemical agent such as sarin, ricin or a biological agent would not destroy a large number of people.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Ok, you got me, I guess a firecracker with mustard gas would not classify as a WMD. Puuhhlleese, do you really think that an artillary shell filled with a chemical agent such as sarin, ricin or a biological agent would not destroy a large number of people.
    didn't one explode on our troops?
  14. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    didn't one explode on our troops?
    Ahh see, once again only part of the story is known and then taken out of context. The one you are speaking of I believe is the roadside IED (improvised explosive device) that was identified prior to detonation by members of the US Army. A team of trained Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD) members set up the detonation/destruction of the device at what would be considered a safe distance for conventional weapons. After the two soldiers detonated the device per protocol for convential weapons they became ill. It was discovered that the weapon had not been a conventional weapon but in actuallity it was a chemical shell that was being used. I know many of you pooh pooh the two soldiers who were taken ill as only being out for 2 days, but in context, what should have been a routine procedure for an EOD squad did end up with two soldiers being treated for chemical exposure.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  15. #55  
    Yes....it was under at least a semi controlled enviroment, but luckily it malfunctioned and the chemicals did not mix properly. It had around 4 liters of sarin.

    NEW YORK — Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday confirm that it did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly nerve agent sarin (search), Defense Department officials told Fox News Tuesday.

    The artillery shell was being used as an improvised roadside bomb, the U.S. military said Monday. The 155-mm shell exploded before it could be rendered inoperable, and two U.S. soldiers were treated for minor exposure to the nerve agent.

    Three liters is about three-quarters of a gallon; four liters is a little more than a gallon.

    "A little drop on your skin will kill you" in the binary form, said Ret. Air Force Col. Randall Larsen, founder of Homeland Security Associates. "So for those in immediate proximity, three liters is a lot," but he added that from a military standpoint, a barrage of shells with that much sarin in them would more likely be used as a weapon than one single shell.

    The soldiers displayed "classic" symptoms of sarin exposure, most notably dilated pupils and nausea, officials said.

    -------------

    The munition found was a binary chemical shell, meaning it featured two chambers, each containing separate chemical compounds. Upon impact with the ground after the shell is fired, the barrier between the chambers is broken, the chemicals mix and sarin is created and dispersed.

    Intelligence officials stressed that the compounds did not mix effectively on Saturday. Due to the detonation, burn-off and resulting spillage, it was not clear exactly how much harmful material was inside the shell.

    A 155-mm shell can hold two to five liters of sarin; three to four liters is likely the right number, intelligence officials said.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 07/12/2006 at 03:54 PM.
  16. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Yes....it was under at least a semi controlled enviroment, but luckily it malfunctioned and the chemicals did not mix properly. It had around 4 liters of sarin.
    Yeah, but those silly little facts don't make it as much fun as when we just ignore them and make up our story as we go. It was full of windex, the boys just wanted time off to sight see.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  17. #57  
    Cardio, most of your "silly little facts" come from Hobbes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cardio
    Any chemical munition is considered a WMD.
    When corrected by gfunkster
    Quote Originally Posted by gfunkster
    The term “weapon of mass destruction” means any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of—
    (A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors;
    (B) a disease organism; or
    (C) radiation or radioactivity.
    --------------

    Which implies that it must have a particular level of destructiveness before it can be classified as such.

    Even the US Military defines it that way:

    weapons of mass destruction — Weapons that are capable of a high order of destruction and/or of being used in such a manner as to destroy large numbers of people. Weapons of mass destruction can be high explosives or nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons,
    You went directly from
    Quote Originally Posted by Cardio
    Puuhhlleese, do you really think that an artillary shell filled with a chemical agent such as sarin, ricin or a biological agent would not destroy a large number of people.
    To abandoning your original argument in lue of sarcasticallly berating others for insensetivity to two sick soldiers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cardio
    I know many of you pooh pooh the two soldiers who were taken ill as only being out for 2 days....

    Yeah, but those silly little facts don't make it as much fun as when we just ignore them and make up our story as we go. It was full of windex, the boys just wanted time off to sight see.
    And topping it off with a scathing flip remark about making up facts when your facts come from a poster on treo central.

    The point here for any of the reasonable board members is not insensetivity for sick soldiers, but accountability for the mushroom cloud exagerrations and outright lies of this administration.
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Cardio, most of your "silly little facts" come from Hobbes.

    And topping it off with a scathing flip remark about making up facts when your facts come from a poster on treo central.
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Of corse he "knows it" because hobbes told him.

    Which I suspect is the reason for hobbes postong his daily "newly uncovered bombshell revelations" here.
    For the second thread, you speak as if someone is quoting items I made up when a cite was the source.....as if there are no sources that were not referenced. His "silly little facts" did not come from me, but from a article from the media. Please stop baiting.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 07/13/2006 at 12:07 AM.
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    For the second thread, you speak as if he is quoting items I made up.....as if there are no sources that were not referenced. Please stop baiting.
    Relax Hobbes, I've already said I thought you seem to be for the most part, keeping the articles in perspective, but pointed out that they could serve as a refuge for the more extreme and/or less informed.
  20. #60  
    Blaze I can respect that (but I personally don't think Cardio is one of the less informed).....then please stop saying they are quoting me as if I am making them up, when the facts are from a quote from a source that I have only cited and linked to as a reference.

    Thanks.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 07/13/2006 at 12:08 AM.
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions