Do the explosives NOW in the hands of terrorists justify the war ?

mzmolly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Oct-26-04 10:22 PM
Original message

Do the explosives NOW in the hands of terrorists justify the war ?

Edited on Tue Oct-26-04 10:41 PM by mzmolly

NO, of course not!

After watching Ann Coulter spew here BS on Scarborough tonight I thought it time to clarify.

She said "sure now that weapons of mass destruction were found after the invasion they're suddenly a problem ..." :eyes:

Seems the Righties are claiming now that the "contained explosives" (that Bush failed to secure) were in fact WMD's thus the war was justified. :crazy:

George Bush said Saddam had a "NUKULAR" program and we needed to invade immediately. This war was NEVER about the contained explosives missing in Iraq today.

WMD's defined:

During the Cold War, WMD exclusively meant nuclear weapons. Indeed, modern nuclear weapons are vastly more destructive than either biological or chemical weapons. Chemical weapons expert Gert Harigel believes that, as a result, only nuclear weapons should be called weapons of mass destruction. Adding to the fact that only nuclear weapons cause destruction; Radiological, Chemical and Biological weapons do not cause destruction; they kill.

The modern use of WMD to refer to NBC weapons was coined by UN Resolution 687 in 1991. This resolution refers to the "threat that all weapons of mass destruction pose to peace and security", and mentions in particular nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, and the three relevant treaties:

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Weapons_of_mass_destruction#Semantic_Disputes

SORRY I POSTED THIS EARLIER, BEFORE I WAS DONE. :hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

undercover_brother

(296 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Oct-26-04 10:23 PM
Response to Original message

1. What about depleted uranium shells.

I here there have been a few of those fire off in Iraq also.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

mzmolly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Oct-26-04 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #1

2. I agree.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

mzmolly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Oct-26-04 10:38 PM
Response to Original message

3. .

:kick:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

LynnTheDem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Oct-26-04 10:46 PM
Response to Original message

4. Can you imagine bush saying we had to invade Iraq because...

they have conventional explosives that are MONITORED by the IAEA and are NOT PROHIBITED; explosives that Iraq is ALLOWED TO HAVE.???!!

Right. Sure. Even stupid Manthrax would have laughed her stupid little ass off if bush had said such bullshit.

Message to stupid Manthrax;

-conventional explosives ARE NOT "WMD".

-Iraq WAS ALLOWED to have them; they are NOT and NEVER WERE on any list of prohibited items.

-bush said we were invading because Iraq had HIDDEN UNDISCLOSED WMD; these CONVENTIONAL explosives were known about and monitored and IAEA-inventoried since 1991.

-WHAT THE F do you NOT understand about this, miss-supposedly-intelligent-bimbo???

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

mzmolly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Oct-26-04 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #4

5. I hear ya!

:hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

milkyway

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Oct-26-04 11:08 PM
Response to Original message

6. This is beyond stupid. IAEA had them under control, they lost control

when bush invaded, and then when they asked to come back in bush wouldn't let them. Now the bad guys are killing our troops with the explosives. This is supposed to be a good thing?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

LynnTheDem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Oct-26-04 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #6

7. besides being under IAEA control, they were NOT PROHIBITED.

Iraq was ALLOWED to have them. Just like they were ALLOWED to have cars and pets and AK-47s and tanks and FALAFEL. :D

They were not prohibited items. The IAEA monitored how Iraq used the explosives, to ensure they only used them for civilian purposes, but Iraq was allowed to have them for civilian use.

Manthrax is a whole lot dumber than she suspects she is.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

mzmolly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-27-04 06:16 AM
Response to Reply #7

8. Heh. Thanks for the info Lynn!

:hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

tomfodw

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-27-04 06:24 AM
Response to Original message

9. This is just desperate spin to confuse the issue

Nobody spouting this nonsense actually believes it. They know what really happened here - as with everything else regarding - well, just about everything else - the Bush Administration fucked it up completely. They're saying anything they can to try to distract the easily distracted media in hopes they'll continue to distract the public for just a few more days from this Administration's incredible list of disasters.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Nikepallas

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-27-04 06:36 AM
Response to Original message

10. I'd say yes

JUST as long as Bush is charged with supplying Terrorist with weapons.

Think of the Irony:evilgrin:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

mzmolly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-27-04 06:46 AM
Response to Reply #10

11. He he.

Welcome to DU! :toast:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Wed May 01st 2024, 05:35 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.