Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

This is the liberal response to the WMD find: "Santorum recycles bogus Iraq WMD claims"
BTC News ^

Posted on 06/22/2006 4:50:29 AM PDT by ChrisFelice1

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-205 next last
To: jwalsh07
You are correct. I was stationed at a chemical weapons site in Germany in 1987-1991 and we had bunkers full of chems that dated back to mid 60s and 80s and I swear some looked like the were from WW1. All of the 155s and 8s were still war capable. The site was decommissioned in early 90s.
151 posted on 06/22/2006 7:19:58 AM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Zavien Doombringer
Ignorance is not virtue Zavien.

Do you mix the precursors of your medicine before you take a dose?

152 posted on 06/22/2006 7:20:39 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: snowrip
Again... "thier intended purpose" = WMDs

Doesn't mean they aren't capable of killing a hundred people, just not thousands

153 posted on 06/22/2006 7:20:44 AM PDT by Zavien Doombringer (Mr. Franklin, what form of customes did you create in Tiajunna? A beeber, Madam, if you can stune it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Funny, the wife is a Pharmacist...ask her

Next time, look at your bottle...Medicine looses it's effectiveness, the date is a safe guard. Some turn to poison after the date...

154 posted on 06/22/2006 7:22:36 AM PDT by Zavien Doombringer (Mr. Franklin, what form of customes did you create in Tiajunna? A beeber, Madam, if you can stune it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Zavien Doombringer
The UN classifies thses weapons, both Binary sarin and mustard gas (HD), as WMD.

Inconvenient for you but the truth anyway.

155 posted on 06/22/2006 7:23:12 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Were you a CBR guy?


156 posted on 06/22/2006 7:23:36 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: snowrip

So instead of having a canister of extremely potent chemical, we are now down to a can of Raid...
Infact, RAID would turn our M-9 tape purple...


157 posted on 06/22/2006 7:25:23 AM PDT by Zavien Doombringer (Mr. Franklin, what form of customes did you create in Tiajunna? A beeber, Madam, if you can stune it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Zavien Doombringer
Why don't you just google binary sarin shells and get somewhat informed instead of planting your feet in quicksand?

Everything degrades in time, ask the SLOTD, but the SLOTD is not an effective argument from your perspective. You are simply wrong. Binary shells are binary for a couple of reasons, one of those reasons is that the precursors are much more stable than the endproduct.

Ask your wife about that.

158 posted on 06/22/2006 7:26:42 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

not an inconvenience for me...I haven't argued about the fact the Sadam had them or not, nor the fact that these are/were dangerous. I am saying that the hype about this is all wrong. The Pentagon even said it wasn't these canisters that got us into the war.


159 posted on 06/22/2006 7:27:59 AM PDT by Zavien Doombringer (Mr. Franklin, what form of customes did you create in Tiajunna? A beeber, Madam, if you can stune it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: treverburton

If you read the mil sites you would have seen almost daily reports of finds and caches since our troops have been there. So search on this site... you don't even have to leave. That's not too hard... right?


160 posted on 06/22/2006 7:28:31 AM PDT by AliVeritas ("One for all , all for kicking *ss and taking names" ...Scratch taking names.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: AliVeritas

> Shooting our planes down... doesn't count, I guess all the resolutions wouldn't make a difference to you, Oil for Food, Planning to kill the president... move along... nothing to see here, look, glitter.

Huh? What prompted that?

> To make it very simple. IAEA didn't check places they should have, they said so in the Dueffer Report).

Is this in response to my question of where were these munitions found? I'm for answers to that, and if the answer/s are 'in the places the IAEA and ISG didn't look' then, great. But if the answers aren't going to be declassified then this story isn't going anywhere.


161 posted on 06/22/2006 7:30:46 AM PDT by treverburton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
I was just transportation that hauled them around, mainly to the helipads and did some guard duty around the perimeter.
162 posted on 06/22/2006 7:30:50 AM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: ChrisFelice1

BUMP

GREAT THREAD


163 posted on 06/22/2006 7:30:55 AM PDT by kitkat (The first step down to hell is to deny the existence of evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
Several US Chemical Weapons facilities (in the 2000-2003 timeframe) were built to specifically incinerate US chemical and binary agents stored since WWI.

But I guess all of those precautions we (my design team) designed in place against KILLING the US workers handling and disposing of these 1916-17-18 weapons weren't needed, because they were "old" chemical weapons.

Funny. We didn't think so. Because (unlike biased ignorant liberal mouthpieces) WE were the ones who WOULD BE killed if the gasses were released unburnt.
164 posted on 06/22/2006 7:31:42 AM PDT by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Vision
They are at war with us, of course they will discredit it.

One day Levin said "We cannot let the mainstream media define success and failure for us."

165 posted on 06/22/2006 7:33:49 AM PDT by ichabod1 (Let us not flinch from identifying liberalism as the opposition party to God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Zavien Doombringer
The Pentagon even said it wasn't these canisters that got us into the war.

LOL, the "Pentagon" has issued NO official statement at all. Your back pedaling furiously. I'll let you.

166 posted on 06/22/2006 7:36:21 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Zavien Doombringer
"The problem with this is that the Weapons found predate 1991 and could not be used for thier intended purpose. They were so degraded that they were inert... Sure they were found, but how much of a threat were they really" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The threat is not so much the chemicals but the warheads. What are they for? The warheads would be the slower and the more difficult of the two to manufacture. Chemicals break down fairly quickly but they can be mixed in a short time and used to arm these war heads. These warheads are a violation and should not be dismissed as nothing.
167 posted on 06/22/2006 7:37:32 AM PDT by inpajamas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
I did my share of hauling crap and guard duty in the Army as well. :-}

Until they sent me to CBR school. Then I got a cushy job. LOL

168 posted on 06/22/2006 7:38:08 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
My last mission at the site, while we were standing down, was to haul some loads of chems to an airbase for shipment to Johnston Atoll and all during this transportation we had to be partially suited up but I remember our commander claiming it was 100% safe. If it was 100% safe why did we have to suit up?
169 posted on 06/22/2006 7:38:24 AM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

I went to some basic CBR schooling, probably just enough to know how to die quicker.


170 posted on 06/22/2006 7:41:01 AM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Zavien Doombringer

Tell it to the Kurds.


171 posted on 06/22/2006 7:42:16 AM PDT by AliVeritas ("One for all , all for kicking *ss and taking names" ...Scratch taking names.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Zavien Doombringer
So instead of having a canister of extremely potent chemical, we are now down to a can of Raid... Infact, RAID would turn our M-9 tape purple...

Huh?

If this is what passes for a rational argument in your mind, you may want to find another website. Interestingly enough, I was just wondering at what point you would be willing to actually educate yourself on the facts, and therefore amend your position. I assume I now have my answer.

When you intentionally ignore reality, you remove yourself from the table of rational discourse.
172 posted on 06/22/2006 7:42:25 AM PDT by snowrip (Liberal? YOU HAVE NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT. Actually, you lack even a legitimate excuse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: D1X1E
Denial: It's not just a river in Egypt anymore.

Sign I've seen in restaurants: Tipping is not a city in China.

173 posted on 06/22/2006 7:44:30 AM PDT by ichabod1 (Let us not flinch from identifying liberalism as the opposition party to God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
Funny.

If the OLD (WWI-era gas) weapons you were shipping to our (my) incinerator in Johnston Atoll were as safe as the liberals are claiming for Saddamn's 15-year old weapons, WHY were hey being to the middle of the Pacific Ocean on a deserted island to be disposed of at 3000 degrees in isolated, hands-free automatic choppers and incinerators?

Why were YOU in chemical suits just to handle the enclosed shells if the WWI gas weapons were "not dangerous"for Saddamn to store in the middle of his cities and bury underground at his airports?
174 posted on 06/22/2006 7:45:36 AM PDT by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: ChrisFelice1

175 posted on 06/22/2006 7:46:21 AM PDT by The G Man (The Red States ... the world's only hope for survival.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HawaiianGecko
I believe finding these weapons was the exact purpose of the UN sanctions. Old or not, the existence of these weapons is a violation of the UN mandates. They don't get a pass because these weapons were "old". I agree. Yesterday three different liberal talking heads all used the same line: "These are not the weapons the administration said we were looking for."

My question is: Then tell me what weapons we were looking for.

This was my choice for "Most Obvious Question To Ask The Lib Whiners That Was Not Asked" last night. Which ones WERE we looking for?

176 posted on 06/22/2006 7:46:35 AM PDT by ichabod1 (Let us not flinch from identifying liberalism as the opposition party to God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: CSM

I'd like to see those documents. Curious how I've never heard Cheney, Bush or Rumsfeld EVER talk about AQ Khan. You'd think they would, you know, mention it if he was involved.


177 posted on 06/22/2006 7:49:03 AM PDT by centristo (Amat victoria curam - Victory favors those who take pains)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: TennTuxedo
500 degraded shells filled with nerve agents are still extremely lethal from all I have read and heard.

My understanding from the weapons expert O'Reilly had on last night, was that degraded means the stuff is no longer a highly volatile liquid, but has turned into a sort of goo. It doesn't flow well, so the artillery rounds wouldn't work properly. Seems to me the terrorists haven't exactly needed artillery tubes to make artillery rounds do their bidding up to now.

178 posted on 06/22/2006 7:49:56 AM PDT by ichabod1 (Let us not flinch from identifying liberalism as the opposition party to God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: TennTuxedo
A Defense Department official told Angle flatly that the munitions hyped by Santorum and Hoekstra are “not the WMD’s for which this country went to war.”

Ah. More or less meaning 'we haven't declassified our de-sanding the WMDs for which we DID go to war'.

179 posted on 06/22/2006 7:50:12 AM PDT by txhurl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
Because the stupid liberals like to downplay the dangers if it conflicts with their rhetoric. My understanding is that as long as they were stored with temps under 90 degrees then their half-life was still 40+ years.
180 posted on 06/22/2006 7:54:05 AM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Nightrider
"lady??

In a manner, of speaking perhaps :)

181 posted on 06/22/2006 8:23:51 AM PDT by bcsco (KOs = KOincidence of KOmmie KOrruption!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

ah, yes......in manner of...


182 posted on 06/22/2006 8:26:27 AM PDT by Nightrider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: snowrip
Ok, so let's all jump onto this hype... I now see what others have been seeing. There is only a onesided thought process here. I didn't think I had to actually go through and itemize my opinions to you or others here.

I have never said there weren't any WMD, nor have I said that there isn't or was a threat. I did say and quoted the sources that the canisters in question were not the reason we went to war as Santorum is ranting about. WE/I know that there are WMDs out there and have yet to find the rest.

Rational thought must prevail... do these canister pose a threat to tens of thousands, or a few hundred. Granted, any loss of life is a terrible thing and to be succombed to chemical warfare (I am trained in chemical warfare - prior enlisted - 8yrs) is a horrible way to suffer and die.

BTW; M9 Tape:

U.S. MILITARY M-9 CHEMICAL AGENT DETECTOR TAPE -- This is the Real Thing! -- M-9 Tape for Chemical Warfare Agent Detection. The M9 detector tape detects the presence of liquid chemical agent, but does not identify either the specific agent or the type of agent encountered. Each soldier is typically issued one 30-foot long and 2-inch wide roll of M-9 paper, or tape. An adhesive backing is incorporated into the tape in order to facilitate wrapping the paper, or tape, around a sleeve or trouser leg. Because the indicator dye in the paper is a potential carcinogen, gloves should be worn during application, and the paper should not contact the skin. The M9 tape is a dull, off-white or cream color in the absence of liquid agent, but contains an indicator chemical that, when dissolved in liquid agent, turns a reddish color. When the soldier sees the color change, the gas mask is immediately put on. The M9 paper will detect nerve agent or blister agent droplets as small as 100 microns in diameter. False positives may be seen if the paper is exposed to antifreeze, liquid insecticide, or petroleum products. M9 tape, which is similar to masking tape, is used by attaching strips to the individual outer garments and to equipment, such as vehicle controls. The strips are then visually inspected routinely for color change. The tape should not be attached to hot surfaces. SOLD BY THE ROLL.

183 posted on 06/22/2006 8:42:11 AM PDT by Zavien Doombringer (Mr. Franklin, what form of customes did you create in Tiajunna? A beeber, Madam, if you can stune it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: AliVeritas

So, when did the Kurds get dusted? Pre 1991?


184 posted on 06/22/2006 8:45:06 AM PDT by Zavien Doombringer (Mr. Franklin, what form of customes did you create in Tiajunna? A beeber, Madam, if you can stune it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Zavien Doombringer

"First... I am not stupid..."

To be fair, perhaps gullible and unconscious might be more specific words.

"Safety is always first..."

If it was then you wouldn't automatically discount the fact that these weapons are still dangerous, even in a 'degraded' state.

"A cup of sarin isn't a weapon until it is used as such... as is Water Hemlock, Lantana, Rhubarb leaves. Not much of a danger until you eat them..."

Perhpas not, but accidents do happen, you know. And I wouldn't count upon the good intent of an Islamic terrorist. So long as they exist the TEMPTATION to use them will similarly exist. Your argument is bass-ackwards; you seem to believe that the things were created without the intention of using them, or at least keeping the possibility of using them open, at some point. That kind of thinking is the same as some guy who wants to buy himself a flamethrower, not to use it, but just so he can say he has one.

You've just applied the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument to a WMD. You must think yourself very clever. If you believe ther eis no difference between a handgun and a chemical weapon, and they can be treated in the same way, you have serious issues.

"The canisters were not attached to warheads. and NO, I would be as so stupid as to have one on a mantle."

You don't know this for a fact, and neither do I. It doesn't even address the possibility that some may still be laying around, unfound, and they ARE attached to warheads. In fact, the cannister itself (if it's a binary weapon) IS the warhead, all that needs to be 'attached' is the propellent, or other contrivance for delivering it.

I'm happy you wouldn't want one in your house, inert or not.

"But, the pentagon has released a report that the canisters could not be used for thier intended purpose, meaning as a weapon of mass destruction"

The Pentagon also routinely pays $400 for toilet seats asnd socket wrenches; so what? The Pentagon can't be wrong, even with the best experts money can buy? Show me where it says in that "Pentagon report" that they investigated and discounted the possibility that while the weapons might be useless, their component parts aren't? You know, the point of this is NOT that a 'degraded cannister' might be used for it's original opurpose (wiping out thousands in a small are), but that smaller amounts might be used to kill hundreds in an enclosed area (like on a subway train or an auditorium).

'Degraded' sarin is still sarin, just not as potent. Buit I can see that you make no distinction; a WMD MUST kill thousands, if not millions, to be considered so. A few hundred (even a few score) deaths or injuries apparently don't constitute a WMD-level threat to you. Please seek help.


185 posted on 06/22/2006 8:58:01 AM PDT by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Zavien Doombringer
The use of the word "stockpiles" by the pedophile Scott Ritter was most unfortunate.

The emphasis was obviously upon mobility and efficiency in Saddam's weapons program. That is how he managed to so successfully play cat and mouse with the UN inspectors for so long.

If there were "stockpiles" (an important element in the Left's orgasm in perpetuating this argument), even Blix would have found them eventually, as "stockpiles" implies immobility.

As has been pointed out previously, this stuff is lethal, and it doesn't take much to do the job. "Stockpiles", such as they are, are not really necessary for the purposes that Saddam would have chosen to us them for.

The simple fact of the matter is, if the WMD allegation, upon close inspection, proves true, then a major, major point of the Left's campaign against the war, and hence President Bush, totally collapses into desert dust.

Not that that would deter these unrepentant apologists for the bad guys.

CA....
186 posted on 06/22/2006 9:21:17 AM PDT by Chances Are (Whew! It seems I've once again found that silly grin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
Very nice of you to try to give me psycho eval on the internet;

'Degraded' sarin is still sarin, just not as potent. Buit I can see that you make no distinction; a WMD MUST kill thousands, if not millions, to be considered so. A few hundred (even a few score) deaths or injuries apparently don't constitute a WMD-level threat to you. Please seek help.

Again, WMD Weapons of MASS destruction

Not Weapons of Destruction. For crying out loud, what on earth is a weapon for anyway... planting?

Guilable.. not hardly as you seem to think that this is a horrendous find...

I guess you think all weapons are WMDs...

187 posted on 06/22/2006 9:26:30 AM PDT by Zavien Doombringer (Mr. Franklin, what form of customes did you create in Tiajunna? A beeber, Madam, if you can stune it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: ChrisFelice1

"....appearance of pre-Gulf War I munitions containing variously disintegrated chemical weapons..."

An IED made from one of these "disintegrated weapons" i.e. Sarin, would certainly wreck your day.


188 posted on 06/22/2006 9:28:59 AM PDT by roaddog727 (Bullshit doesn't get bridges built.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zavien Doombringer

Are you willing to open one up and take a deep breath?


189 posted on 06/22/2006 9:32:49 AM PDT by mike70
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ChrisFelice1

This is why Bush has not bothered to open this can of worms and just move forward.


190 posted on 06/22/2006 9:34:13 AM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zavien Doombringer
Actually, only nuclear devices can be correctly labeled "weapons of mass destruction". The other stuff being discussed and bandied about are really "weapons of area denial".

If you happen to be the one who catches the effects of one or the other, I don't suppose it makes much difference, does it? A distinction without a difference, as it were.

CA....
191 posted on 06/22/2006 9:34:22 AM PDT by Chances Are (Whew! It seems I've once again found that silly grin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: hershey
Santorum said many more WMD sites had been found, but were still 'classified'. The problem seems to be that the admin. thinks they've moved on,...

I suggest this is a classic GWB move. Since the issue had been "settled" by the Dems and MSM, he is just having Santorum throw some bait out and wait until the Dems bite. If history tells us anything, the Dems will not disappoint.

192 posted on 06/22/2006 9:36:17 AM PDT by Loyal Buckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Zavien Doombringer

"I guess you think all weapons are WMDs..."

No, I base my opinion first hand knowledge; I spent 12 years in the United States Navy as an aviation ordnanceman (that is someone who handles, maintains, and loads weapons, explosives and associated equipment on naval aircraft).

You get hung up on the term MASS. Mass means, simply, more than 1. Two is more than one. One hundred is more than one. Two hundred is more than one. You seem to not want to apply this term to anything that will kill more than a few people at a time. I'm telling you that even when these things are "inert", as you keep insisting, they are not harmless. Two completely different concepts at work here.

I can only imagine that you have a vested interest (probably psychological) for insisting otherwise. Is it too scary a thought for you that such things exist? Are you a democrat in sheep's clothing (oh wait, I forgot: democrats and sheep are the same thing!)? Explain just how it is you came to the conclusion that these 500 weapons are HARMLESS?

Please don't repeat the mantra "The Pentagon said so", because that means nothing; the Pentagon once told me I would be deployed for only 60 days which wound up being 281 (amongst other things), and they once told my father's generation we were winning the Vietnam War while he under fire at Khe Sanh, so I have very little faith in what a REMF-paper-pusher has to say on anything. Where did you get the questionable idea that any weapon is harmless?

And you're welcome for the psych evaluation. Unfortunately, it appears you won't takemy advice though, and seek professional treatment for this delusionary state.


193 posted on 06/22/2006 11:11:42 AM PDT by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
No, I base my opinion first hand knowledge; I spent 12 years in the United States Navy as an aviation ordnanceman (that is someone who handles, maintains, and loads weapons, explosives and associated equipment on naval aircraft).

And that means you are an expert on "wet eye", MC-1 and spray tanks

194 posted on 06/22/2006 11:24:54 AM PDT by Zavien Doombringer (Mr. Franklin, what form of customes did you create in Tiajunna? A beeber, Madam, if you can stune it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
I can only imagine that you have a vested interest (probably psychological) for insisting otherwise. Is it too scary a thought for you that such things exist?

I have loaded such things including mock nukes in South Korea - I have seen the destruction most cause through the fire-power demos...Scary thought, no.. a scary reality.

Are you a democrat in sheep's clothing (oh wait, I forgot: democrats and sheep are the same thing!)?

No, I am not...

Explain just how it is you came to the conclusion that these 500 weapons are HARMLESS?

Must not be harmless - it's killing you to argue this...

195 posted on 06/22/2006 11:36:00 AM PDT by Zavien Doombringer (Mr. Franklin, what form of customes did you create in Tiajunna? A beeber, Madam, if you can stune it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101

Oh, just incase you didn't know, I did my time on the Flight Line... just cause you got 4 yrs more doesn't mean squat... those last four of yours means you were pushing a desk...


196 posted on 06/22/2006 11:40:39 AM PDT by Zavien Doombringer (Mr. Franklin, what form of customes did you create in Tiajunna? A beeber, Madam, if you can stune it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Zavien Doombringer

Guess again; I did three-quarters of MY time aboard carriers (Eisenhower, Midway and Enterprise). Your "flight line" means shyte compared to my flight line. My "last four years" were spent as an instructor, not a desk jockey.

And you;re still wrong.


197 posted on 06/22/2006 12:09:25 PM PDT by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
My "last four years" were spent as an instructor, not a desk jockey.

I rest my case

198 posted on 06/22/2006 12:13:55 PM PDT by Zavien Doombringer (Mr. Franklin, what form of customes did you create in Tiajunna? A beeber, Madam, if you can stune it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101

You still didn't mention if you knew "wet eye", MC-1 or Sprays...


199 posted on 06/22/2006 12:17:59 PM PDT by Zavien Doombringer (Mr. Franklin, what form of customes did you create in Tiajunna? A beeber, Madam, if you can stune it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Zavien Doombringer

Wet Eye is a chemical weapon )usually something along the lines of an Osmium Tetroxide-type compound) that is a dessicant; it will literrally, suck the moisture from your eyes (among other places), eating them out of your sockets.

The MC-1 was a chemical bomb, about a 200-lb volume, if I remember correctly. Probably closer to 250, though.

And spray "this"...


200 posted on 06/22/2006 12:26:26 PM PDT by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-205 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson