sorry but i had too....

[zakstang]

the moron never ceases to amaze me.....he has been ripping Bush a new asshole all along because "there are no weapons of mass destruction in iraq" but when a whole bunch of explosives go missing kerry says the following...


Kerry pounced on reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency that the explosives that could be used in conventional or nuclear bombs had disappeared, as proof Bush had failed as US commander in chief.


"George W. Bush, who talks tough, talks tough, and brags about making America safer has once again failed to deliver," Kerry said.


"After being warned about the danger of major stockpiles of explosives in Iraq this president failed to guard those stockpiles.


"Terrorists could use this material to kill our troops, our people, blow up airplanes and level buildings," Kerry said.


the IAEA says they could be used in a nuclear bomb!!! thats not a WMD????????? kerry even says that terrorists could use them to blow up a building or plane!! thats not a WMD??? anyway just had to vent....

and besides, I thought this was old news??? didnt this get reported a long time ago???

[SFC]

they aren't weapons of mass destruction... they're explosives that could be USED to set off a nuke...

the explosives went missing after we invaded, and they weren't a threat before the war with iraq because the UN was in control of the site where they were stored... We knew of their existence, and they were not an immediate threat.

And no, weapons that cause as little damage as those do aren't considered "WMD'S". The odds of them killing more than a couple hundred people (which only would happen in the perfect scenario) is slim to none.

whatever flame on brotha, but he's pretty just in what he said. That's the kind of thing we should've had on lockdown from day 1 if we weren't going to have UN support.

[zakstang]

so explosives that could blow up a building arent WMD???? hmmmmm ok
and a couple hundred dead Americans isnt mass destruction huh??? ok where do u draw the line???

granted they should have been taken care of if we knew where they were (and once again as with all news reports, we dont know the whole story) but i am sure there are hundreds more stockpiles of weapons of this type in iraq we still dont and didnt know about prior to invading iraq.....so my point is, there are WMD in iraq.....

[SFC]

so explosives that could blow up a building arent WMD???? hmmmmm ok
and a couple hundred dead Americans isnt mass destruction huh??? ok where do u draw the line???

I believe there's an actual definition somewhere.

If I recall correctly it's biological weapons, and nukes, and that's about it.

*and chemical.

[Stormwalker]

So what I get out of this thread so far is this:

Kerry is upset that some weapons in Iraq, that could kill people, level buildings, and blow up airplanes, went missing.

This runs contrary to the fact that Kerry has said there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Weapons that could kill people, level buildings, and blow up airplanes are not weapons of mass destruction. Weapons have to kill 201 or more people to be labeled "mass destruction".

If the UN was involved, the weapons would not be missing.

The clear definition of weapons of mass destruction is limited to biological weapons and nuclear weapons. It does not include things like the zarkon death ray.

Oh and don't forget chemical.

Ok, I am wondering why you are defending Kerry by trying to define the weapons stolen as not weapons of mass destruction. I am just surprised, since it is a far weaker argument than others that you could have taken. You could have stuck by Kerry by saying that the US is too weak and unable to keep track of weapons and should not be in Iraq or some such thing. Instead you kind of sidetrack the issue and create a new issue. This is called a "red herring" and most people see through it. I now demand that if you are going to start posting a counter argument, that you at least confine your rebuttals to the topic on hand for at least the first page. Thank you.

[Matt87GTA]

they aren't weapons of mass destruction... they're explosives that could be USED to set off a nuke...

the explosives went missing after we invaded, and they weren't a threat before the war with iraq because the UN was in control of the site where they were stored... We knew of their existence, and they were not an immediate threat.

And no, weapons that cause as little damage as those do aren't considered "WMD'S". The odds of them killing more than a couple hundred people (which only would happen in the perfect scenario) is slim to none.

whatever flame on brotha, but he's pretty just in what he said. That's the kind of thing we should've had on lockdown from day 1 if we weren't going to have UN support.

Holy shit......

:hah: :idiot:

Ya can't make this stuff up folks!!!!

[SFC]

So what I get out of this thread so far is this:

Kerry is upset that some weapons in Iraq, that could kill people, level buildings, and blow up airplanes, went missing.

This runs contrary to the fact that Kerry has said there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Weapons that could kill people, level buildings, and blow up airplanes are not weapons of mass destruction. Weapons have to kill 201 or more people to be labeled "mass destruction".

If the UN was involved, the weapons would not be missing.

The clear definition of weapons of mass destruction is limited to biological weapons and nuclear weapons. It does not include things like the zarkon death ray.

Oh and don't forget chemical.

Ok, I am wondering why you are defending Kerry by trying to define the weapons stolen as not weapons of mass destruction. I am just surprised, since it is a far weaker argument than others that you could have taken. You could have stuck by Kerry by saying that the US is too weak and unable to keep track of weapons and should not be in Iraq or some such thing. Instead you kind of sidetrack the issue and create a new issue. This is called a "red herring" and most people see through it. I now demand that if you are going to start posting a counter argument, that you at least confine your rebuttals to the topic on hand for at least the first page. Thank you.

the whole point of invading iraq was that "we think they have WMD's" We knew of this ammunition stockpile, the UN was in control of it, it wasn't going anywhere, it wasn't going to be used against anyone. That stockpile wasn't and still ISNT WMD's.

What side issue am I trying to bring up? We knew those weapons existed since like 95... the UN has been in control of them for years, they weren't a danger to the US. Had the UN lost control, we would've known immediately and could've taken action to recover them (if that meant invading so be it).

================================================== =======

Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are weapons designed to kill large numbers of people, typically targeting civilians and military personnel alike. They are generally considered to have a psychological impact rather than a strictly military usefulness.

Though the phrase was coined in 1937 to describe aerial bombardment, the types of weapons today considered to be in this class are often referred to as NBC weapons or ABC weapons:

* nuclear weapons (including radiological weapons)
* biological weapons
* chemical weapons

They are also known as weapons of indiscriminate destruction, weapons of mass disruption and weapons of catastrophic effect.

================================================== ========

I edited my definition after I found what they had listed... and it was what I originally assumed. Way to try and sidetrack the REAL meat of the argument by trying to point out that, OMG, I added to my post because I realized I forgot chemical!

Regular bombs aren't considered WMD's, these weren't WMD's, and we (through the UN) had control of them up until the point we decided to invade forcing the UN to leave... and we obviously didn't do a very good job of making sure they stayed safe.

[USAlx50]

who cares, kerry using "there are you wmd's" to help his cause is retarded anyways..As he voted to go to war because he thought they were a threat just as much as W. did with the same intelligence.

Kerrys whole campaign is based on ripping bush because you know there are Dems out there that will eat it up.. Its not like his campaign is based on solid realistic plans for improvement..

[Wild_MN]

I like Bush!

[Matt87GTA]

the whole point of invading iraq was that "we think they have WMD's" We knew of this ammunition stockpile, the UN was in control of it, it wasn't going anywhere, it wasn't going to be used against anyone. That stockpile wasn't and still ISNT WMD's.

What side issue am I trying to bring up? We knew those weapons existed since like 95... the UN has been in control of them for years, they weren't a danger to the US. Had the UN lost control, we would've known immediately and could've taken action to recover them (if that meant invading so be it).

================================================== =======

Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are weapons designed to kill large numbers of people, typically targeting civilians and military personnel alike. They are generally considered to have a psychological impact rather than a strictly military usefulness.

Though the phrase was coined in 1937 to describe aerial bombardment, the types of weapons today considered to be in this class are often referred to as NBC weapons or ABC weapons:

* nuclear weapons (including radiological weapons)
* biological weapons
* chemical weapons

They are also known as weapons of indiscriminate destruction, weapons of mass disruption and weapons of catastrophic effect.

================================================== ========

I edited my definition after I found what they had listed... and it was what I originally assumed. Way to try and sidetrack the REAL meat of the argument by trying to point out that, OMG, I added to my post because I realized I forgot chemical!

Regular bombs aren't considered WMD's, these weren't WMD's, and we (through the UN) had control of them up until the point we decided to invade forcing the UN to leave... and we obviously didn't do a very good job of making sure they stayed safe.

What about all of the times Saddam gave the inspectors the boot?

And I hardly would call having inspectors poking around blindly trying to find illegal weapons having "control" of the weapons...

Quite the convenient definition of WMD ya got there.

[Shadowgray03]

We knew of their existence, and they were not an immediate threat.

Define immediate. The planes that hit world trade center prolly werent deemed an immediate threat either but they sure killed a lot of innocent people.

Im not pro bush or pro kerry. In fact I am ashamed that they are the best our country could come up with to put in the white house.

[Stormwalker]

.

What side issue am I trying to bring up? .

I was pointing out that instead of offering a clear rebuttal to the fact that Kerry was denouncing the Bush administration of supposedly losing weapons, even though he supposedly said that there is supposedly no such weapons, you offered a rebuttal to the nature of the weapons themselves, which is a different argument. You did not offer a rebuttal to the argument offered in the first post.

[SFC]

Define immediate. The planes that hit world trade center prolly werent deemed an immediate threat either but they sure killed a lot of innocent people.

Im not pro bush or pro kerry. In fact I am ashamed that they are the best our country could come up with to put in the white house.

Immediate threat: north korea building nukes and having the rockets to send them across the pacific and hit california. IE: shit that can take out an entire city in one shot in the hands of someone who's sure to use them against us. Then again, I don't really make the rules for what is or isn't an immediate threat, but I would assume that's what the people in power generally consider an immediate threat.

Of course, then I have to go back to the fact that I don't really think saddam would've been a threat even if he HAD WMD's... he's had the last 10 years to use them if he really wanted to and didn't. I don't really see why he'd wait till AFTER 9/11 to do something if he was going to seeing as our security rose after that date. *shrug* whatever. This is yet another case of "I stand by bush no matter what". I really don't see the point in these threads anymore. You aren't changing anyone's mind.

[SFC]

I was pointing out that instead of offering a clear rebuttal to the fact that Kerry was denouncing the Bush administration of supposedly losing weapons, even though he supposedly said that there is supposedly no such weapons, you offered a rebuttal to the nature of the weapons themselves, which is a different argument. You did not offer a rebuttal to the argument offered in the first post.

... did you read the first post.

the IAEA says they could be used in a nuclear bomb!!! thats not a WMD????????? kerry even says that terrorists could use them to blow up a building or plane!! thats not a WMD??? anyway just had to vent....

He thought that those were considered WMD's... I corrected him.

[MadMatt]

Vote Bush! Dont be just another mass produced lobotomized liberal!