WMD? Wonder what the spin will be on this.

[techweenie]

I take it back! According to the gov'mint, WMD is chemical, biological or nuclear weaponry, with no specification as to the amount.

So, basically a molecule of sarin would meet the Bush Administration's definition.

As would a tainted oyster.

It's Nuke-ewe-lar weapons.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by techweenie
I take it back! According to the gov'mint, WMD is chemical, biological or nuclear weaponry, with no specification as to the amount.

So, basically a molecule of sarin would meet the Bush Administration's definition.

As would a tainted oyster.

Read your definition again. The sarin nerve gas was in a warhead which makes it weaponry. The tainted oyster is in a chowder.

[VINMAN]

Originally posted by cowtown
Did you guys know that Al Gore invented Sarin?

[techweenie]

Oh, it's much more complicated than that.

The sarin was to have been 'mixed in flight' in the shell. So was it sarin or sarin components in the rigged shell?

Likely, the explosives the shell were the greater danger.

Nevertheless, the issue for me is was it worth expending 700+ lives to find this?

If we find even one ton of the 790 tons of sarin Saddam had 20 years ago, I'll take it all back.

[fintstone]

It only takes one drop to kill. We spent a lot more lives liberating France than Iraq...They don't currently seem any more grateful.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by techweenie
Oh, it's much more complicated than that.

The sarin was to have been 'mixed in flight' in the shell. So was it sarin or sarin components in the rigged shell?

Based on that logic (or lack thereof), we don't have any nuclear weapons either. That is pretty much how they work too.

[techweenie]

"Based on that logic (or lack thereof), we don't have any nuclear weapons either. That is pretty much how they work too."

Well, are you sating that since the Iraqis have atoms, they must have atom bombs?

Really, that's awfully silly. Sarin is usually waponized as a binary munition -- as are many other nerve gasses. Otherwise transportation and storage is problematical.

[island911]

[lendaddy]

Oh man, good stuff. Just because the idiots didn't use it properly, it doesn't exist Excellent. Logic is officially out the window for the dems today.

[lendaddy]

On second thought, I'm not buying it. I mean Ritter and Blix would surely have found it if it were there. Hmmmm. Ok I'll let this one slide, but only because I'm sure it's the only one. Aren't you?

[cowtown]

Perception is reality:

CNN - (inside an article on the new Iraqi Council Leader):
More testing set for shell

Fox - front page:
U.S. Confirms WMDs Found in Iraq

BBC News:
'Nerve gas bomb' explodes in Iraq

MSNBC:
U.S.: Roadside bomb has sarin gas

NYTIMES:
Sarin Shell Is Found by U.S. Forces

WSJ:
The military confirmed a roadside bomb containing sarin exploded near a U.S. convoy on Saturday, but no serious injuries were reported.

USA Today
Roadside bomb released sarin nerve agent

LATimes:
Nerve-Gas Shell Exploded in Iraq

[fintstone]

Originally posted by techweenie
"Based on that logic (or lack thereof), we don't have any nuclear weapons either. That is pretty much how they work too."

Well, are you sating that since the Iraqis have atoms, they must have atom bombs?

Really, that's awfully silly. Sarin is usually waponized as a binary munition -- as are many other nerve gasses. Otherwise transportation and storage is problematical.

No, duh! Nuclear weapons are designed similarly. You do not combine reactive componeents until delivery. Why would you think transportation and storage of nukes is any less problematic?

Seems to me that placing the components of sarin (nerve) gas and the mechanism to combine them in an artillery shell would lead any reasonable person to conclude it was a chemical weapon.

[techweenie]

Do you guys remember when sarin was found last April?

it was in a lab. There was a big hubbub. 'Sniffer' instruments missed it in 2 out of 3 tests, but still, there were traces. I guess that wualifies as WMD, too.

lendaddy: it isn't just that the idiots didn't use the shell properly. There's a reasonable question as to whether it was sarin or sarin components.

To use fintsone's analogy: if they had a bag with plutonium and TNT in it, would that have qualified as a WMD?

[fintstone]

Originally posted by techweenie

To use fintsone's analogy: if they had a bag with plutonium and TNT in it, would that have qualified as a WMD?

As a matter of fact, it would. They call that a "dirty" bomb.

[fintstone]

Yes, lets push this under the rug for a while. It is a long time til October.

[techweenie]

Actually, the bag of TNT and plutonium, although a 'dirty bomb' would not qualiify as a WMD according to the government definition.

I will stipulate that "a WMD" was discovered in Iraq, because the definition of WMD says that's what it is, and if we can't all operate off the same definitions, we can't have discourse.

I will still contend that one artillery shell -- or even a handful -- do not constitute; and did not constitute a clear and present danger to the U.S. in the hands of a petty dictator 6,000+ miles from the U.S. The only way to make that shell really dangerous was for us to go to where it was and have it shot at us.

[lendaddy]

LOL I am honestly in awe This is hillarious. Techweenie is ACTUALLY USING the "depends on what the definition of is....is" defense. Oh man, good stuff

[fintstone]

Originally posted by techweenie
Actually, the bag of TNT and plutonium, although a 'dirty bomb' would not qualiify as a WMD according to the government definition.

I give up. Why not?

[techweenie]

lendaddy: "Techweenie is ACTUALLY USING the "depends on what the definition of is....is" defense."

Okay, here's a test: can you tell me the context (pre spin) for Clinton's original question about 'what is is?'

I have a feeling that like the nonexistent 'I invented the Internet' quote, you can't really pick at what it meant when it was said *in context.*