Not RPG grenade launchers.

---Tarsier

Either of which, actually, with a little ingenuity, could easily be tainted with any of those items mentioned.


Thanks for posting this, Shadow. Another victory for our side.....ignored as usual by the MSM, and belittled by the doomcriers on JU.

If we had controlled the several hundred ammo dumps we knew about, we would have prevented MOST of the dead and injured Americans. No one said there were no weapons just not nuclear etc that Bush claimed!

---Col. Green

Col., Col., Col....way to cast a dim(witted) shadow on what should be a happy occasion. Way to go, guy.
Now, who's to say that the "ammo dumps we knew about", were where these particular weapons came from, originally? There are lots of guns in the world, Col., and lots of ammo to fill them.
Also, there are lots of Arab sheiks giving lots of cash to lots of poor bearded sots who use it to buy some of those guns and ammo for use in Iraq and in blowing themselves up in the hope of killing innocent Iraqis and Amercian troops.

You one-eyed perspective makes me sick, Col.

ShadowWar

Bush had Intel that clearly said Saddam did not have the WMD. Bush ignored that intelligence because it did not support what he wanted to do which was remove Saddam.

At the risk of having to side with TARIER here, WMD is just another name for Nuclear, Biological & Chemical weapons. That is one of the problems when people start talking in political buzzwords, they become bogged down in the quagmire of interpretation.


Colon Bin Gangrene:

Is it so hard for you to just congratulate our troops for this little victory? Apparently, acknowledging any job well done is beyond your pathetic Bash Bush myopia.

At the risk of having to side with TARIER here, WMD is just another name for Nuclear, Biological & Chemical weapons. That is one of the problems when people start talking in political buzzwords, they become bogged down in the quagmire of interpretation.

LOL, im not the tarsier, a furry little animal from Bornia, im the mispelling of a small dog. Great.

I would you taint an RPG to become a WMD? I seek to be enlightened (truthfully, I do).

I would you taint an RPG to become a WMD? I seek to be enlightened (truthfully, I do).

I know of only one meaning for the word "taint" and it has nothing to do with RPGs or WMD... ;~D

But if someone loaded a Rocket Propelled Grenade with Nuclear, Chemical or Biological armament, then yes, it would be WMD, however, if it was a standard C4 loaded round, then no, (no matter how massive the destruction) it wouldn't be WMD.

The other question I have is, if all the "experts" had no idea about this weapons cache, how can they say so confidently that there are no WMDs in Iraq?

This cache didn't contain any WMD, but how many more caches are still left undiscovered? How can those "experts" say that none of them contain any Nuclear, Biological or Chemical payload?

This cache didn't contain any WMD, but how many more caches are still left undiscovered? How can those "experts" say that none of them contain any Nuclear, Biological or Chemical payload

Care to answer this one col clueless? And no "matter" what "your" experts say....there is "plenty" of proof around showing that not all of Saddam's WMD's were accounted for! They may not have found any WMD's however, that in itself is NOT proof that they do not exist!

Weapons of mass destruction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
Weapons of
mass destruction
By Type
Biological weapons
Chemical weapons
Nuclear weapons
Radiological weapons
By country
Brazil Canada
China (PRC) France
Germany India
Iran Iraq
Israel Japan
Netherlands North Korea
Pakistan Poland
Russia South Africa
Taiwan (ROC) United Kingdom
United States


Nuclear weaponry
Nuclear countries
Nuclear proliferation
Nuclear strategy
Nuclear terrorism
Nuclear warfare
Nuclear weapon history
Nuclear weapon design
Nuclear explosion
Nuclear testing
See also
Dirty bomb
Biodressing
Radiological warfare
edit
Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) generally include nuclear, biological, chemical and, increasingly, radiological weapons. The term first arose in 1937 in reference to the mass destruction of Guernica, Spain, by aerial bombardment. Following the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and progressing through the Cold War, the term came to refer more to non-conventional weapons. The terms ABC, NBC, and CBRN have been used synonymously with WMD, although nuclear weapons have the greatest capacity to cause mass destruction. The phrase entered popular usage in relation to the U.S.-led multinational forces' 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Terp:

This isn't possible. There are no weapons in Iraq. Just ask the clueless liberals. Iraq was not a danger to us. They didn't have weapons that could harm us. At least that is what they said once we went in, before that they were crying that we'd lose needless lives to the WMDs that Saddam was sure to unleash upon us.

Tarsier:

WMDs? Must have missed that in the article. You are so intelligent to call liberals clueless, because it says right in the article that they found MORTAR ROUNDS. Oh, I forgot, mortar rounds ARE weapons of mass destruction. Good thing we found those WMDs, otherwise the insurgents would launch mortar rounds thousands of miles over the ocean and hit the U.S., or another target on their hit list.

DJBandit (quoting Tarsier in his comment):

You really are an idiot, no where in the article does it mention WMD and no one in any post said that mortar rounds were WMD. They said the WMD that Saddam supposely had to use against our soldiers.

Okay, okay, boys... while WMDs are bad and, like conventional munitions, can kill many people, they are not the same thing. The article (anybody remember the article?) said that a huge weapons stash was found. Mortar rounds and bullets and stuff. Nothing about those rounds being NBC. While a WMD can, by definition, be classified as anything that could hypothetically kill more than one person at a time (mass being more than one, apparently), "Weapons of Mass Destruction" encompass only nuclear, biological, and chemical agents that could be used against large quantities of people.

Yes, I saw through the multiple levels of sarcasm on this one, and I also saw where a simple misunderstanding had ballooned out of control. Let's not try to redefine WMD simply to justify a misunderstanding.

Our military have done a fine job. It is Bush that did not send the number of troops needed and sent them without the needed equipment.

Our military have done a fine job. It is Bush that did not send the number of troops needed and sent them without the needed equipment.

This from a guy who only just recently said he did not want more troops in Iraq. Link

Better reread what I wrote. The time for more troops was in 2003. The lack of troops is because Bush did not listen to his top generals or his Ambassador. There were not enough troops to Control the borders. There were not enough troops to prevent the terrorists from using the explosives in several hundred ammo dumps we were unable to secure. We could not clean out and occupy the many areas where the terrorists operated and which we bypassed on our hurry to depose Saddam.

More troops today will not fix the insurrection created by the way Bush conducted this war. Our military were given an impossible task with insufficient resources-- both manpower and equipment. Bush elected to fight this war. We were not obligated to fight. We were not attacked by Iraq. We were not in danger of being attacked by Iraq. If we did not have the manpower and equipment, WHY did Bush insist on attacking Iraq in early 2003?

There is a debate about IF we should have invaded Iraq. The is very little debate about the fact that Bush failed to provide the troops required and has created the situation that exists today. Bush allowed the insurrection to develop by failing to provide the manpower needed to control Iraq starting the day after Saddam fell from power!

Colon Bin Gangrene, it must scare you to death to think that Prs. Bush just may come out a hero because of this war. How does it feel to be so invested in failure of the U.S.???

No matter what happens in Iraq Bush will NEVER come out a hero. Sending our military to their death without the need to protect our country assures that. He first made the error of going to war and then compounded his mistake by not sending the troops required to prevent Iraq from turning into the bloody insurrection it is today!

Here is another story about the fact our military does not have the proper eqipment



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/07/politics/07armor.html?th&emc=th