Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

( And so what if ISIS has those weapons now ? They were ' depleted and degraded ' even before the war, in 2002, so why should there be any concern now, + 12 more years ? )

---

This is the point, these weapons, by 2002, were not a threat to anyone - so why do you maintain that it was a good idea to go to war over them? Ironically now we could see them being used by jihadist terrorists in dirty bombs or crude gas attacks against the Kurds - something that the Iraq war was supposed to prevent but has only, in fact, made possible.

---

Quote:

---

Jarrod L. Taylor, a former Army sergeant on hand for the destruction of mustard shells that burned two soldiers in his infantry company, joked of “wounds that never happened” from “that stuff that didn’t exist.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

That is simply and categorically false. They WERE still a threat to anyone, as evidence that US soldiers DID get injured from being in proximity to those weapons !

All the shells may not have been weapons grade, or even near their original potency, but some WERE very dangerous and yes, lethal. Was it only 1 shell in 10 ? 100 ? 1000 ? Who the hell knows for certain ? It really is just academic now.

This batch of old WMD may not kill 1000's of Kurds, but they still very well could be used to harass a village before a ISIS assault. All sorts of uses for those things, if you think about it. Because they aren't still 'fresh', 12+ years later, is irrelevant.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Geez, my post from yesterday seems to have generated 20 posts since then. Man.
Might take me a while to get through them all. But from what I can see, FWIW this seems the precise example of why I use the endearing term RapKnight.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Now, you want to discuss if old WMD from the 80's was justification to go to war ? That's an entirely DIFFERENT topic.

I'll grant you that, if you just admit that Saddam did indeed have WMD , in artillery form, at the start of the '03 invasion.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

But rehashing the bad intel that was genuinely believed ( thus making it not a lie ) to be true, that was half or at times fully wrong, still doesn't dismiss the truth.

Saddam had WMD.

Nothing can change that fact.

Not Democrats who lied and switched their positions from before the war to after it started, to W himself claiming there were none.

Saddam had WMD.

Had them IN COUNTRY, at the time the war started.

---

Quote:

---

That is simply and categorically false. They WERE still a threat to anyone, as evidence that US soldiers DID get injured from being in proximity to those weapons !

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Also, I found this interesting to re-read.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/07/dont_be_so_sure_there_were_no.h
tml

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

My goodness! Bush was conspiring to keep the WMD truth hidden!

---

Quote:

---

And so what if ISIS has those weapons now ? They were ' depleted and degraded ' even before the war, in 2002, so why should there be any concern now...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Just to point out again, in case anyone missed it:

These same shells that it was such an outrage for Saddam to be in possession of (even though he was doing nothing with them and they were just decaying in the desert) and it was worth going to war for... now that they're falling into the hands of ISIS, as a result of said war, Auraptor says:

Quote:

---

And so what if ISIS has those weapons now ? They were ' depleted and degraded ' even before the war, in 2002, so why should there be any concern now...

---

The man is a marvel.

It's not personal. It's just war.

---

Quote:

---

The most important chemical reactions of phosphoryl halides is the hydrolysis of the bond between phosphorus and the fluoride. This P-F bond is easily broken by nucleophilic agents, such as water and hydroxide. At high pH, sarin decomposes rapidly to nontoxic phosphonic acid derivatives.[14][15] The initial breakdown of sarin is into isopropyl methylphosphonic acid (IMPA), a chemical that is not commonly found in nature except as a breakdown product of sarin. IMPA then degrades into methylphosphonic acid (MPA), which can also be produced by other organophosphates.[16]

Sarin degrades after a period of several weeks to several months. The shelf life can be shortened by impurities in precursor

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

My goodness! Bush was conspiring to keep the WMD truth hidden!

---

Well, that's exactly what he and Karl Rove did.

Excuses were given, in addition to that annoying clean up matter.

Rove figured it was too costly, in political capital, to respond to the Left's never ending criticism that there were no WMD. Rove wanted to just 'move on', and move the agenda forward. ( What ever the hell that was )

Also, Rove figured that by revealing that there were WMD still present, militants might rise up and try to make use of it. So, just pretend there's none there , and maybe you'll just dodge a bullet.

Idiot political gamble on Rove's part. Again.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Just to point out again, in case anyone missed it:

These same shells that it was such an outrage for Saddam to be in possession of (even though he was doing nothing with them and they were just decaying in the desert) and it was worth going to war for... now that they're falling into the hands of ISIS, as a result of said war, Auraptor says:

Quote:

---

And so what if ISIS has those weapons now ? They were ' depleted and degraded ' even before the war, in 2002, so why should there be any concern now...

---

The man is a marvel.

It's not personal. It's just war.

---

Not the " result " of the war, the REASON for the war.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

It is not funny how AURapture always handles political problems with explanations that make the Republicans party look its best: "Rove figured that by revealing that there were WMD still present, militants might rise up and try to make use of it. So, just pretend there's none there , and maybe you'll just dodge a bullet." - Oh for sure, AURapture. Rove was doing the best he could to protect America. Not.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

What ever happened to doing the right thing as a policy platform ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
As for Mr. Rove, the fact that he still has relevance in Republican politics is a sad testimony to the state of the party. Seems he's the only one who knows how to raise money and run political ads for Republicans ... how pathetic.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
You thrive on it. It's really somethin' to behold. I don't believe a word of the story anyhow.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

My goodness! Bush was conspiring to keep the WMD truth hidden!

---

Well, that's exactly what he and Karl Rove did.

Excuses were given, in addition to that annoying clean up matter.

Rove figured it was too costly, in political capital, to respond to the Left's never ending criticism that there were no WMD. Rove wanted to just 'move on', and move the agenda forward. ( What ever the hell that was )

Also, Rove figured that by revealing that there were WMD still present, militants might rise up and try to make use of it. So, just pretend there's none there , and maybe you'll just dodge a bullet.

Idiot political gamble on Rove's part. Again.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
You thrive on it. It's really somethin' to behold. I don't believe a word of the story anyhow.

---

On what exactly do I thrive ?

And what 'story' don't you believe ?

Please, clarify.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
You thrive on it. It's really somethin' to behold. I don't believe a word of the story anyhow.

---

On what exactly do I thrive ?

And what 'story' don't you believe ?

Please, clarify.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Yeah funny ... like when Star Wars prequels make billions of dollars while Serenity makes a couple hundred bucks. C'est la vie indeed.

---