EH! CAN"T HERE YOU, SPEAK UP!!

Counterpoint:

These weapons predate Gulf War 1 and, in all likelihood, have degraded to the point where they're no longer useful. Sarin gas, in particular, has a shelf life of approximately 6 months. They are, in short, not the weapons we went to war over. If President Bush had gone before the American People and said that we needed to rapidly move towards invading Iraq because of a few hundred twenty year old artillary shells of dubious functionality, he would have been laughed off the hill.

And now the disembling, spinning, and general moving of the goal posts begins. No proof is ever sufficient for these terrorist-loving dipshits...

These weapons predate Gulf War 1 and, in all likelihood, have degraded to the point where they're no longer useful. Sarin gas, in particular, has a shelf life of approximately 6 months.

Smacking Finchie's counterpoint over the centerfield wall:

Finchie, you and your fellow morons on that side of the aisle said there were no WMDs there AT ALL.  Zip, zero, nada, goose egg.  For the last four years, you idiots have been asking "where are the WMDs, where are the WMDs, where are the WMDs?"  "Which way did he go, George, which way did he go?"

In addition, all the post-Gulf War resolutions mandated that Hussein had to get rid of them all.  Not just some, not just all excapt for the ones he used for hood ornaments on his limo, not just the ones left over from his gassing of the Kurds...all  of them.  And he was to document their destruction, as well.

Hussein refused to do these things, even in the face of a dozen Useless Nitwit resolutions.  He refused to cooperate with UN inspectors and eventually threw them out of Iraq.

Oh, and speaking of Gulf War I...remember that the armistice signed by Hussein himself  declared that if he didn't  abide by these terms, the United States had the right to go back into Iraq, with or without UN approval?  Bet you didn't remember that, now did you, Finchie?

Might wanna give it up while you're behind, man.  You're even worse at this than you are at defending evolution - and you ain't too good at that, either.

Haha, I tell my butt-buddies, you know I told Spatula i would meet him at 5PM and then couldn't go 'cause i pissd my pants. Don't post in my name anymore 'cuz ima enough of a jackass. Don't project my idiocy onto the net cuz id cwy. You know ima scared little bitch vomitting my bulshit all over the internet.....well not really i do spend some time sukking mykki's cock all over, what do i have like two or three of my buttbuddies in my ass at the same time while i spew a crock of shit no wonder i pass gass alot ? Weapons of mass destruction in my ass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[If you say so, swishy boy. (guffaw)  -LSI]

Blackiswhite wrote:

And now the disembling, spinning, and general moving of the goal posts begins. No proof is ever sufficient for these terrorist-loving dipshits...

Au Contraire. If anyone is spinning this it's Senator Santorum. From Colin Powell's speech to the UN

Iraq declared 8,500 liters of anthrax, but UNSCOM estimates that Saddam Hussein could have produced 25,000 liters.

We know that Iraq has at lest seven of these mobile biological agent factories. The truck-mounted ones have at least two or three trucks each.

Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.

Saddam Hussein already possesses two out of the three key components needed to build a nuclear bomb. He has a cadre of nuclear scientists with the expertise, and he has a bomb design.

The Bush Administration stood before the world and declared, with absolute confidence, that Iraq possessed thousands of liters of anthrax, mobile biological weapons trucks, several hundred tons of chemical weapons agents including Sarin and VX, and an infrastructure capable of supporting the manufacture of nuclear warheads.

Three years, $320 billion dollars, and about forty thousand lives later, what have we got? A few hundred Sarin and Mustard gas shells from twenty years ago which, in all likelihood, degraded past the point of any real usefulness during Clinton administration.

Colour me unimpressed.

Furthermore, if you check the ground intelligence report Senator Santorum cites, it says that the shells in question had been collected over a three year period. It's not as though coalition forces have stumbled upon a large stockpile of weapons. They've been acquired piecemeal - a Sarin shell here, a Mustard cannister there - since March 03. To hear Santorum spin it you could be forgiven for thinking the ground intelligence report detailed one large discovery rather than summarised dozens of insignificant discoveries.

Spats

Finchie, you and your fellow morons on that side of the aisle said there were no WMDs there AT ALL.

No. We just said that Saddam never possessed the weapons Bush accused him of possessing. On that score, history has borne us out. To quote your own cite:

"[These weapons]...are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

The anthrax, the VX, the mobile weapons trucks, the nuclear infrastructure, that's what we doubted the existence of. I don't think anyone bothered to doubt the possibility that there might be a few Gulf war I relics scattered around Iraq because, even if discovered, they wouldn't really constitute much of a threat. They certainly don't constitute a threat significant enough to launch a pre-emptive war over.

Hussein refused to do these things, even in the face of a dozen Useless Nitwit resolutions. He refused to cooperate with UN inspectors and eventually threw them out of Iraq.

And need I remind you that, once they had been re-admitted, Saddam's co-operation with them was such that Hans Blix passionately argued for more time to complete his inspections?

And need I remind you that President Bush was the one who refused them that time?

Might wanna give it up while you're behind, man. You're even worse at this than you are at defending evolution - and you ain't too good at that, either.

I'd probably do a far better job if you didn't summarily dismiss my cites as being 'Too Liberal'.

Mr. Finch ignores one major point. Saddam spent years playing the UN and the USA for fools. I don't care how co-operative he appeared to be. We have no proof that he did adhere to the terms of his surrender. Thus, the whole argument on the propriety of our attack is moot. We did the right thing, now, if the idiot politicians would fire all the political generals, and leave the rest alone, we could finish the job.

Correction:
We have no proof that he did not adhere to the terms of his surrender

Should have said:We have no proof that he did adhere to the terms of his surrender.

Sorry.

[No prob, sir.  I fixed it.  -LSI]

Thanks.

Let me guess: you believe in the WMDs, in creationism, and lots of other myths too don't you?

Let me guess: you believe in the WMDs, in creationism, and lots of other myths too don't you?

Let me guess - you swallow bullshit like evolution, Saddam never had WMDs and that your crap doesn't stand - then you beg for more, don't you?

Bullshit like evolution. Man.

Truth hurts, doesn't it, sonny?

"Truth hurts, doesn't it, sonny?"

I mean, what else can one say? I'm sure it does. That's why mythology is so attractive.

Then from this point forward, you're under the same restriction as our esteemed (?) Professor Jact-ass:

Post conclusive, absolute evidence that evolution is true (complete with links - and no, talkorigins.org will not count for this exercise), or else your comments won't see the light of day here.

I'd start that book-crackin' if I were you, dumbass.