How did that happen?

[Exception Collection]

Actually, they didn't have WMD at the time we invaded. They didn't have WMD at the time we won. The only evidence of WMDs - is from WMDs they had before Gulf War 1. They were working on developing new ones, but had not developed them at the time of invasion - in fact, they were very far behind North Korea and Iran in their work towards getting them.

Ahh, I see - they didn't have the WMD's that they did have, but they were working on the ones they didn't have, and now they don't have any. Got it. That clarifies a lot.
Can we get back to discussing the mathematical tendencies of the Almighty? What about pi? Where does that come from?

From the "reliable source" of Wikipedia, so grain of salt etc.

Captured documentsMain article: Operation Iraqi Freedom documents

Operation Iraqi Freedom documents refers to some 48,000 boxes of documents, audiotapes and videotapes that were captured by the U.S. military during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Many of these documents seem to make clear that Saddam's regime had given up on seeking a WMD capability by the mid-1990s. Associated Press reported, "Repeatedly in the transcripts, Saddam and his lieutenants remind each other that Iraq destroyed its chemical and biological weapons in the early 1990s, and shut down those programs and the nuclear-bomb program, which had never produced a weapon." At one 1996 presidential meeting, top weapons program official Amer Mohammed Rashid, describes his conversation with UN weapons inspector Rolf Ekeus: "We don't have anything to hide, so we're giving you all the details." At another meeting Saddam told his deputies, "We cooperated with the resolutions 100 percent and you all know that, and the 5 percent they claim we have not executed could take them 10 years to (verify). Don't think for a minute that we still have WMD. We have nothing."[114] U.S. Congressman Peter Hoekstra called for the U.S. government to put the remaining documents on the Internet so Arabic speakers around the world can help translate the documents.[115]

[edit] Small number of degraded chemical weapons recovered

On June 21, 2006 the U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released key points from a classified report from the National Ground Intelligence Center on the recovery of chemical munitions in Iraq. The report stated that "Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent." However, all are thought to be pre-Gulf War munitions.[116]

 

[IlPadrino]

Actually, they didn't have WMD at the time we invaded. They didn't have WMD at the time we won. The only evidence of WMDs - is from WMDs they had before Gulf War 1. They were working on developing new ones, but had not developed them at the time of invasion - in fact, they were very far behind North Korea and Iran in their work towards getting them.

You do know that chemical weapons are considered WMD, yes? You'd be very silly to think there were no chemical weapons (WMDs!) in Iraq in the 90's, 00's or 10's.

 

[Exception Collection]

Actually, they didn't have WMD at the time we invaded. They didn't have WMD at the time we won. The only evidence of WMDs - is from WMDs they had before Gulf War 1. They were working on developing new ones, but had not developed them at the time of invasion - in fact, they were very far behind North Korea and Iran in their work towards getting them.

You do know that chemical weapons are considered WMD, yes? You'd be very silly to think there were no chemical weapons (WMDs!) in Iraq in the 90's, 00's or 10's.

I didn't know Gulf War 2 (the specific situation I was talking about) included the '90s.

By the time we invaded - referencing WMDs - they had no usable chemical weapons. Some locations were found that had early 90s era sarin and mustard gas, but they had decayed to the point of uselessness and been improperly disposed of.

In other words, read my above post.

 

[IlPadrino]

I didn't know Gulf War 2 (the specific situation I was talking about) included the '90s.

The Operation Iraqi Freedom (aka Iraq War... but only internet trolls call if Gulf War 2) started in 2003 - but I think you knew that.

By the time we invaded - referencing WMDs - they had no usable chemical weapons. Some locations were found that had early 90s era sarin and mustard gas, but they had decayed to the point of uselessness and been improperly disposed of.

And you know this how? All you "know" about this topic is from what you choose to read while trolling the internet - so please don't pass off as fact what you have no first hand knowledge of. You might take a look through the Wikileaks to see another perspective.

In other words, read my above post.

Once was enough, thanks.

 

[Exception Collection]

I didn't know Gulf War 2 (the specific situation I was talking about) included the '90s.

The Operation Iraqi Freedom (aka Iraq War... but only internet trolls call if Gulf War 2) started in 2003 - but I think you knew that.

Yes, I did know that.. and if it's not the second gulf war, what is it? The first war was also a war in Iraq, as I recall (though I was distracted a bit at that time).

By the time we invaded - referencing WMDs - they had no usable chemical weapons. Some locations were found that had early 90s era sarin and mustard gas, but they had decayed to the point of uselessness and been improperly disposed of.

And you know this how? All you "know" about this topic is from what you choose to read while trolling the internet - so please don't pass off as fact what you have no first hand knowledge of. You might take a look through the Wikileaks to see another perspective.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20020542-503543.html

http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thr...hreadid=4668095

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wi...rising-results/

Here's a quote from the last one:

The WMD diehards will likely find some comfort in these newly-WikiLeaked documents. Skeptics will note that these relatively small WMD stockpiles were hardly the kind of grave danger that the Bush administration presented in the run-up to the war.
But the more salient issue may be how insurgents and Islamic extremists (possibly with the help of Iran) attempted to use these lethal and exotic arms. As Spencer noted earlier, a January 2006 war log claims that “neuroparalytic” chemical weapons were smuggled in from Iran.

Now the question is, is there a difference between a very small, old cache and no cache at all? Yes, but not enough of one to start a war over.

 

[IlPadrino]

Now the question is, is there a difference between a very small, old cache and no cache at all? Yes, but not enough of one to start a war over.

Oh... so you accept there were usable, but not large enough to start a war over?

 

[Capt Worley PE]

Now the question is, is there a difference between a very small, old cache and no cache at all? Yes, but not enough of one to start a war over.

Oh... so you accept there were usable, but not large enough to start a war over?

:appl: :appl: :appl:

Honestly, though, don't you get tired of responding over the railing of the bridge?

 

[Otter]

I anticipate a deeply religious experience.

 

[Boon]

After I graduate, I'm gonna get drunk every night.

 

[csb]

 

[Exception Collection]

Now the question is, is there a difference between a very small, old cache and no cache at all? Yes, but not enough of one to start a war over.

Oh... so you accept there were usable, but not large enough to start a war over?

I'm not sure when I said I thought they were usable. Tested positive for a chemical doesn't mean usable. And the more recent caches were probably imports from other countries.

 

[IlPadrino]

Now the question is, is there a difference between a very small, old cache and no cache at all? Yes, but not enough of one to start a war over.

Oh... so you accept there were usable, but not large enough to start a war over?

I'm not sure when I said I thought they were usable. Tested positive for a chemical doesn't mean usable. And the more recent caches were probably imports from other countries.

You really are insufferable. If you'd already said (written, to be pedantic!) you accept they were usable, why would I have asked the question?

You're just about one silly post away from getting http://engineerboards.com/index.php?act=us...e&uid=18930'd!

 

[pbrme]

^^ :bananalama:

 

[Exception Collection]

You really are insufferable. If you'd already said (written, to be pedantic!) you accept they were usable, why would I have asked the question?
You're just about one silly post away from getting http://engineerboards.com/index.php?act=us...e&uid=18930'd!

You said:

Oh... so you accept there were usable, but not large enough to start a war over?

But you're mischaracterizing what I'd said. I'd said chemical weapons were found. I didn't say they were usable chemical weapons from the time Saddam controlled the country. They were either degraded weapons, or newer imported weapons. There may have been enough degraded weapons for him to have rebuilt a partial stockpile; I'm not a chemist or chemical engineer, I don't know how that works - I wouldn't think it would just separate and be useless, so there might be some sort of chemical they could use to refresh the weapons somehow. But there still weren't enough to be considered a major threat, and low-end chemical weapons aren't exactly hard to make (delivery systems, however, are).

So, to answer your question - No, I don't think the weapons were usable. I do think they could have been made usable, but from the sounds of it Saddam himself didn't know they were there. Given that, I can only assume that some of the generals he placed in charge of dismantling them tried to hide some from the inspectors, and ended up losing them in truth to either theft or stupidity.

(Also, the question sounded rhetorical to me, hence my answer.)

As for the ignore list, eh, not sure I care. Personally, I think it's better to have honest debate (or as close to it as you can get on the internet) than to ignore people that don't agree with you, but you might disagree.

 

[IlPadrino]

But you're mischaracterizing what I'd said.

I didn't characterize *anything* you said. I asked a question.

(Also, the question sounded rhetorical to me, hence my answer.)

If it sounded like a rhetorical question, why did you answer it?

As for the ignore list, eh, not sure I care. Personally, I think it's better to have honest debate (or as close to it as you can get on the internet) than to ignore people that don't agree with you, but you might disagree.

OK... you're at 0.8 and will quickly be in negative territory at this pace. You're only saving grace might be the realm of imaginary numbers!

 

[IlPadrino]

Honestly, though, don't you get tired of responding over the railing of the bridge?

Taking the day off from work, so this is my public service!

 

[wilheldp_PE]

 

[envirotex]

opcorn:

 

[Capt Worley PE]

Honestly, though, don't you get tired of responding over the railing of the bridge?

Taking the day off from work, so this is my public service!

Kudos! Good of you to think of your fellow man!

 

[Exception Collection]

Yeah... I'm rather prone to that issue, unfortunately. Also the Wiki Walk, especially at TV Tropes.