In Defense of Iran

bloodyminded · February 22, 2010

Don't worry, I won't burst your bubble re: nerve gas and chemical warfare. It never existed. In fact, it doesn't exist anywhere. Chemical warfare is a construct of the American military complex to dupe citizens like myself into living in a state of fear. Remember all those pictures of chemical warfare during World War 1? Totally fake. Abyssinian...also a huge fake just to make Mussolini look bad. This is also why the Holocaust is a hoax. Since nerve gas and such simply do not exist, it is impossible that Jews got gassed during WW2 in concentration camps. The Cold War was also faked...just so the Illuminati could get rich on weapons production. Not to mention....etc, etc.

You totally sidestep the point...as you must, since you have no response:

The government says it was wrong about the WMD threat.

The people who sold you that threat, and whom you passionately believed, later admitted they were mistaken.

Your disagreement is with them, not with me.

DogOnPorch · February 22, 2010

You totally sidestep the point...as you must, since you have no response:

The government says it was wrong about the WMD threat.

The people who sold you that threat, and whom you passionately believed, later admitted they were mistaken.

Your disagreement is with them, not with me.

Unlike yourself, I don't use the government for military information.

Iraq claimed to have destroyed all VX nerve agent stocks in 1991...the problem with this scenario is that VX needs special facilites to burn and reduce...which Iraq never had.

So how did they do it?

Edited February 22, 2010 by DogOnPorch

GostHacked · February 22, 2010

Unlike yourself, I don't use the government for military information.

Well, Bush did.

DogOnPorch · February 22, 2010

Well, Bush did.

Bush was part of the Government of the United States...the Executive Branch. Thus, your response makes no sense.

So no guesses what Iraq did with the VX precursors? Or do you also believe that Iraq didn't use nerve gas?

DogOnPorch · February 22, 2010

You must have not heard about General Georges (Sada) or you missed my post.

Good interview with Sada here. He says Syria.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1565160/posts

Oleg Bach · February 22, 2010

There was no intelligence failure concerning Iraq. The idots knew that Saddam had no weapons of mass distruction and they knew he was simply spreading rumors to thwart any aggression from Iran. The was moral bankrupcy though when it came to invasion of a nation and the distruction of infrastructure. Maybe moral neutralism can be defined as a lack of intelligence -AND if anyone of us was questioned by the guy with the most numerous and deadly weapons on the planet as to who is more intelligent _ Him or the weaker guy _ Of course we are going to say that the bigger monkey is more intelligent and simply had a temporary void when it came to intelligence..kind of like blanked out for a second and pillaged a nation.

Bonam · February 23, 2010

Of course Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. They had used them in the Iran-Iraq war 20 years earlier, deploying chemical weapons on Iranian cities. Do you really think they completely lost the knowledge and capability of making those weapons again?

Oleg Bach · February 23, 2010

Of course Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. They had used them in the Iran-Iraq war 20 years earlier, deploying chemical weapons on Iranian cities. Do you really think they completely lost the knowledge and capability of making those weapons again?

Spraying a few mountain tribes with insecticide does not really constitute a grand mass killing machine- It was experimental and a novelty. Amassing ten thousand troops all firing at once is a weapon of mass destruction - as is the A- bomb - as is germ war far. Saddams methods were childs play in comparison to the incrimental long term killing that the west is capable of - Just because chemical weapons destroy thousands instantly does not make them anymore lethal than a concerted conventional campaign that kills just as many over a longer lenght of time - What is the body count of civlians at this point in time regarding Iraq - I would say that between the maiming and out right killing has been a mass destruction--It makes the Kurdish issue pale.

DogOnPorch · February 23, 2010

There was no intelligence failure concerning Iraq. The idots knew that Saddam had no weapons of mass distruction and they knew he was simply spreading rumors to thwart any aggression from Iran. The was moral bankrupcy though when it came to invasion of a nation and the distruction of infrastructure. Maybe moral neutralism can be defined as a lack of intelligence -AND if anyone of us was questioned by the guy with the most numerous and deadly weapons on the planet as to who is more intelligent _ Him or the weaker guy _ Of course we are going to say that the bigger monkey is more intelligent and simply had a temporary void when it came to intelligence..kind of like blanked out for a second and pillaged a nation.

You obviously didn't bother listening to the former #2 Iraqi general under Saddam.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1565160/posts

He says all WMDs were shipped to Syria under the guise of disaster relief. Is he lying?

Spraying a few mountain tribes with insecticide does not really constitute a grand mass killing machine- It was experimental and a novelty. Amassing ten thousand troops all firing at once is a weapon of mass destruction - as is the A- bomb - as is germ war far. Saddams methods were childs play in comparison to the incrimental long term killing that the west is capable of - Just because chemical weapons destroy thousands instantly does not make them anymore lethal than a concerted conventional campaign that kills just as many over a longer lenght of time - What is the body count of civlians at this point in time regarding Iraq - I would say that between the maiming and out right killing has been a mass destruction--It makes the Kurdish issue pale.

VX is one of the deadliest substances known to man. Far from a mere 'insecticide'. An amount equal to a pencil point is enough to kill you dead right now.

Oleg Bach · February 23, 2010

A common bullet the size of a pencil erraser kills instantly also. Its all about perception - killing on mass with a WMD is shocking - but killing the same amount slower with conventional weapons is not as shocking - both are the same. ONE is simply more time consuming.

DogOnPorch · February 23, 2010

A common bullet the size of a pencil erraser kills instantly also. Its all about perception - killing on mass with a WMD is shocking - but killing the same amount slower with conventional weapons is not as shocking - both are the same. ONE is simply more time consuming.

Oleg...that's one of the stupidest things you've ever posted.

Oleg Bach · February 23, 2010

Oleg...that's one of the stupidest things you've ever posted.

You noticed did you? Really thought that I could get that one by you. It is more sinister to sneak in and more dangerous to release a few droplets of the devils brew than to send a strike force of 50 thousands Iranian nut bars with machine guns blazing - You would see them coming - nerve gas - no one sees untill it is to late _ I see the failing in my logic - finally... :rolleyes:

eyeball · February 23, 2010

Of course Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. They had used them in the Iran-Iraq war 20 years earlier, deploying chemical weapons on Iranian cities. Do you really think they completely lost the knowledge and capability of making those weapons again?

You don't think the fact we stopped supplying Iraq with the things they need to make chemical weapons plus bombing the shit out of the country had anything to do with eliminating their capacity to make them again?

Bonam · February 23, 2010

Spraying a few mountain tribes with insecticide does not really constitute a grand mass killing machine- It was experimental and a novelty.

Are their lives worth less because they are "mountain tribes"? You were arguing exactly the opposite point in your Afghanistan thread. Also, if it was "experimental" that only makes it even worse. The killing of humans in biological/medical experiments is just about the most disgusting war crime that can possibly be committed.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Bonam

DogOnPorch · February 23, 2010

You don't think the fact we stopped supplying Iraq with the things they need to make chemical weapons plus bombing the shit out of the country had anything to do with eliminating their capacity to make them again?

As mentioned earlier, while America did ship Saddam some items that had potential chemical/biological weapon use, it was a few notable European countries plus a UAE firm located in Singapore that shipped the precursors that made the actual weapons.

Edited February 23, 2010 by DogOnPorch

DogOnPorch · February 23, 2010

Are their lives worth less because they are "mountain tribes"? You were arguing exactly the opposite point in your Afghanistan thread. Also, if it was "experimental" that only makes it even worse. The killing of humans in biological/medical experiments is just about the most disgusting war crime that can possibly be committed.

The Iraqis were using chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq War on a very regular basis. Hardly 'experimental'.

Oleg Bach · February 23, 2010

Are their lives worth less because they are "mountain tribes". You were arguing exactly the opposite point in your Afghanistan thread. Also, if it was "experimental" that only makes it even worse. The killing of humans in biological/medical experiments is just about the most disgusting war crime that can possibly be committed.

Of course you are correct...still I am pissed off that kids are being twarted from drinking bottled water and force to injest chlorine in tap water - I might suggest that chlorine dehydrates and weakens the body - and pure water refreshes - again - what makes you live longer - good clean chemical free water or the stuff that is incrimentalist version of weapons of mass domestic destruction...Sticking to the point that just because something is incrimental and not noticed does not make it anymore favorable than a swift destruction..again - it is a case of time - just wish you could get a good glass of water in this town without having to pay for water..wtf?

bush_cheney2004 · February 23, 2010

You don't think the fact we stopped supplying Iraq with the things they need to make chemical weapons plus bombing the shit out of the country had anything to do with eliminating their capacity to make them again?

Nope....UNSCOM was still finding precursors in Iraq through 1998, then the inspections stopped because they were kicked out. UNSCOM could not say with certainty that all such weapons had been accounted for and/or destroyed.

DogOnPorch · February 23, 2010

Nope....UNSCOM was still finding precursors in Iraq through 1998, then the inspections stopped because they were kicked out. UNSCOM could not say with certainty that all such weapons had been accounted for and/or destroyed.

...and as you probably know all-too-well...getting rid of VX isn't as easy as putting it in a bag and tossing it in the dumpster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnston_Atoll_Chemical_Agent_Disposal_System

Edited February 23, 2010 by DogOnPorch

Oleg Bach · February 23, 2010

Bad money and good money..it does not matter - who is originally responsible for these materials entering these supposed rouge nations? One of the most oddest things I ever witnessed was this old guy that we knew years back - I might be repeating myself but this is about Ernie the arms dealer..I mentioned to him that his wealth was blood money - He quiped back that "I saved lives, I armed both sides." He was refering to the Iran Iraq blood bath..

What was odd was in the fact that Ernie was known to the authorities and was allowed to operate out of Canada with impunity - It was not strange to see a few Irish guys sitting at his bar waiting to clothes a deal - Point is - all materials are sold by enterprising jerks - and we fail to curb these enterprisers...Look at the Malroney and Shriber scandal -what the hell were they really dealing in - and do any of these materials kill Canadian troops? We will never know..but money is money - good or bad. :rolleyes:

DogOnPorch · February 23, 2010

who is originally responsible for these materials entering these supposed rouge nations

In Iraq's case, Saddam.

Oleg Bach · February 23, 2010

In Iraq's case, Saddam.

Saddam had money. He made the buys through his surrogates - Who were the salesmen? Who faclitiated the deals? We don't talk about that do we? Were they French - British - and what about the Russian billionares - who had these sudden meteoric rises in wealth? Where are the missing nukes gone from the former Soviet arsenal? It makes sense that Iran has a had a nuke or two for a decade.

DogOnPorch · February 23, 2010

Saddam had money. He made the buys through his surrogates - Who were the salesmen? Who faclitiated the deals? We don't talk about that do we? Were they French - British - and what about the Russian billionares - who had these sudden meteoric rises in wealth? Where are the missing nukes gone from the former Soviet arsenal? It makes sense that Iran has a had a nuke or two for a decade.

Stop trying to apologize for Saddam Hussein. He wasn't a child and knew full well what he was getting into.

Oleg Bach · February 23, 2010

Stop trying to apologize for Saddam Hussein. He wasn't a child and knew full well what he was getting into.

I would never apologize for Saddam or for his hero Stalin! These were monsters of course...and at one time Saddam was a "child" of sorts and mentored by the CIA - then that child became a lethal brat.

Oleg Bach · February 23, 2010

You're stepping dangerously close to being a terrorist supporter.

You might be stepping dangerously close to striking a low blow..this "terrorist" tagging is silly...any - person that terrorizes you is a terrorists - even your bank manager...