Do you believe there are/were WMDs in Iraq?
- Thread starter DigitalWarrior
- Start date
- Status
RoyG
Member
I actually think it is B, C and D
Northslope Nimrod
Member
DigitalWarrior is right! Everyone lied! Well, almoste everyone..........Sadaam is the only truthful one among us. We should never have mistrusted him. Forgive us our trespass Sadaam. 
Not only did Bush lie to us....he tricked the CIA, much of his cabinet, several other international intelligence agencies, Pres. Clinton, Pres. candidate Gore, John Kerry..........I can't go on.....It's too painful to know that Bush hornswaggled so many. BTW, how did someone so "dumb" pull one over on so many "smart" people. NEVER again! Sadaam is the man to trust. 
Not only did Bush lie to us....he tricked the CIA, much of his cabinet, several other international intelligence agencies, Pres. Clinton, Pres. candidate Gore, John Kerry..........I can't go on.....It's too painful to know that Bush hornswaggled so many. BTW, how did someone so "dumb" pull one over on so many "smart" people. NEVER again! Sadaam is the man to trust. DigitalWarrior
Member
HEY NIMROD (and others but I just like saying that)
If I say "I KNOW that there is a car in my garage" and it turns out that there is not a car in my garage I lied. I lied about knowing. Because I couldn't have known something that was untue.
Bush said they were there when we went in. Bush knows the difference between knowledge of a fact and conjecture, Harvard grad and all.
NimRod, please relax, the strawman is beat half to death after that. Did I say "trust Saddam? No.
If I say "I KNOW that there is a car in my garage" and it turns out that there is not a car in my garage I lied. I lied about knowing. Because I couldn't have known something that was untue.
Bush said they were there when we went in. Bush knows the difference between knowledge of a fact and conjecture, Harvard grad and all.
NimRod, please relax, the strawman is beat half to death after that. Did I say "trust Saddam? No.
No, it means you were mistaken. By definition, to lie means that you're trying to deceive.
To use your analogy, if you really thought the car was in the garage, and said so, then you are not lieing, you are mistaken. If you knew the car wasn't in the garage, but said so anyway, then you're lieing.
Lone_Gunman
Member
If you believe Saddam had WMD, and if you believe they were moved out of Iraq before we invaded, do believe we are really safer now that Saddam is out of power and the weapons are in the hands of unknown terrorists?
Who is really more likely to use them, Saddam or their current unknown owners?
Saddam could count on severe retalliation if he ever used them against us. We now don't know who has these weapons, so if they use them, we don't have a target to strike back.
Who is really more likely to use them, Saddam or their current unknown owners?
Saddam could count on severe retalliation if he ever used them against us. We now don't know who has these weapons, so if they use them, we don't have a target to strike back.
They are in the hands of the Syrian government. And we are safer, because now everyone knows what we'll do to anyone who might use, or help use, these weapons. We scared Lybia right out of the WMD business, for example. It's only a matter of time before Syria caves in.
griz
Member
To continue with the analogy:
If I tell the local home owners association that my neighbor owns a car, parks it in his garage some days, drives it to work five days a week, and parks it in one of several parking places while at work. I also have my Secretary show some pictures of the car pulling into the garage, and he says he has classified pictures of the car parked at the work site, but he can't show them.
Now if I invade my neighbors place and find nothing but a garage with a years worth of dust on the floor, did I lie?
If I tell the local home owners association that my neighbor owns a car, parks it in his garage some days, drives it to work five days a week, and parks it in one of several parking places while at work. I also have my Secretary show some pictures of the car pulling into the garage, and he says he has classified pictures of the car parked at the work site, but he can't show them.
Now if I invade my neighbors place and find nothing but a garage with a years worth of dust on the floor, did I lie?
Lone_Gunman
Member
Rebar, why do you think Syria has them? I agree they are a likely suspect, but I don't think there is proof.
If Syria does have them, why don't we attack them? If it was worth going to war with Iraq, then it is worth going to war with Syria.
If a biological or chemical weapon was detonated today in the US, would you invade Syria in response?
Why did Bush give up looking for them when he didnt find them in Iraq?
If Syria does have them, why don't we attack them? If it was worth going to war with Iraq, then it is worth going to war with Syria.
If a biological or chemical weapon was detonated today in the US, would you invade Syria in response?
Why did Bush give up looking for them when he didnt find them in Iraq?
Because of the reports of large truck convoys just before the war started moving from the suspected weapons sites to Syria's Bekka valley.
Because we're persuing other means first. Do you really think that Lebanon rising up against Syrian occupation was an accident? Right now Syria is in a really tight spot, their government is becoming unstable, isolated geographically and politically, it's only a matter of time before they give in or topple.
DigitalWarrior
Member
I am sorry I went off track. We can conjecture (like Bush) till we are blue in the face (Like GWB trying to eat a pretzel), and still get no where.
Does anyone have evidence of their beliefs? I know that I cannot prove my position (it wasn't there), but just one piece of evidence to the contrary would make me change my beliefs.
Does anyone have evidence of their beliefs? I know that I cannot prove my position (it wasn't there), but just one piece of evidence to the contrary would make me change my beliefs.
Nathanael_Greene
Member
A Kurdish friend of mine, who lived in Iraq as a little girl, and whose father was imprisoned and tortured by Saddam's regime, had relatives who were gassed.
I can't prove what she says is true, but I believe her, especially given the photos I've seen of mass-murdered Kurdish families. So yeah, I believe Saddam had them at some point.
I also believe the President told the truth as he knew it before the invasion, simply because if he was as cynical and dishonest as his critics claim, he would have *planted* WMD evidence after the fact to justify the casus belli. It would've been easy enough to do.
I can't prove what she says is true, but I believe her, especially given the photos I've seen of mass-murdered Kurdish families. So yeah, I believe Saddam had them at some point.
I also believe the President told the truth as he knew it before the invasion, simply because if he was as cynical and dishonest as his critics claim, he would have *planted* WMD evidence after the fact to justify the casus belli. It would've been easy enough to do.
From the State of the Union, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
"Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.
Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.
The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.
The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.
Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.
Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.
With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)
The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)
And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)
The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.
We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.) "
DW, you care to show me where the President said it was an "imminent threat"? Quite the contrary, he said we had to act BEFORE it was imiminent. Facts are a bitch, aren't they?
"Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.
Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.
The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.
The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.
Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.
Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.
With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)
The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)
And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)
The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.
We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.) "
DW, you care to show me where the President said it was an "imminent threat"? Quite the contrary, he said we had to act BEFORE it was imiminent. Facts are a bitch, aren't they?
DigitalWarrior
Member
Larry, Dude, beware the fury of Art's Grammaw. And here are some selected quotes.
"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
• President Bush, 7/17/03
"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03
"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03
"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03
"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
• President Bush, 11/23/02
"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02
"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
• President Bush, 7/17/03
"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03
"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03
"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03
"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
• President Bush, 11/23/02
"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02
"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
DigitalWarrior
Member
Rebar, please look at the issue closely
I never said that The Iranians and Kurds were killed with love. or flowers.
I am not saying "Saddam was a good Guy".
I am not saying "The Iraqi people heart Saddam."
I am not saying that Saddam was a peace-loving hippie.
My position is that I have seen no evidence that there was a weapons program active near the time of the invasion.
Do not make me pull apart the State of the Union address. But this one is free.
I never said that The Iranians and Kurds were killed with love. or flowers.
I am not saying "Saddam was a good Guy".
I am not saying "The Iraqi people heart Saddam."
I am not saying that Saddam was a peace-loving hippie.
My position is that I have seen no evidence that there was a weapons program active near the time of the invasion.
Do not make me pull apart the State of the Union address. But this one is free.
And they said there are no weapons. We said show them. They said they are gone. We said show them.
Jay Kominek
Member
As I recall, the UN resolution laid on Iraq the responsibility of proving that they had no NBC weapons. Because after all, a team of 20 or 50 guys running around with Iraqi translators couldn't ever actually hunt down NBC weapons. They could just be there to look at the proof. So I think your phrasing of the above is, uh, unfortunate.
"They said there are no weapons. We said prove it. They said they are gone. We said prove it."
- is a bit more the way it went, and in line with the resolution.
Unfortunately I can't find the resolution I'm thinking of so as to quote it.
There are a lot of things we don't see evidence of. They're called secrets. That does not logically necessitate that they are not/did not happen.
Ohen Cepel
Member
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
Found this after a short search, there are several others out there.
I can't see how it's a debate at all. Sarin gas is a WMD. Sarin and mustard gas was found in Iraq and Sarin was used against our soldiers.
He had WMD (Sarin). If you don't think so, what more will it take you to believe the facts? You could write the soldiers who were injuried by the Sarin if that would help you I guess.
I don't see how one can ignore these simple facts. It's not an opinion. He had sarin, sarin is a WMD. What is there to get?
Found this after a short search, there are several others out there.
I can't see how it's a debate at all. Sarin gas is a WMD. Sarin and mustard gas was found in Iraq and Sarin was used against our soldiers.
He had WMD (Sarin). If you don't think so, what more will it take you to believe the facts? You could write the soldiers who were injuried by the Sarin if that would help you I guess.
I don't see how one can ignore these simple facts. It's not an opinion. He had sarin, sarin is a WMD. What is there to get?
Master Blaster
Member
I think a few folks here need to remove the "Kerry Edwards" sticker from their bumpers. I still see them on a few cars around here. The folks driving those cars have a wild eyed, disheveled look about them. Some of them also have a "Just say no to sex with pro lifers sticker" on their car also.
Just like Firearms, Knives, and baseball bats, WMD NBC are inanimate objects, It takes a heartless psychopath to use them to murder innocents.
Sadaam and his Sons, were heartless psychopathic killers, to leave them in charge of the 2nd largest proven oil reserves in the world, in the center of the middle east, and expect sanctions to prevent an eventual disaster, is just like giving a pyromaniac a 10 gallon can of gasoline and a case of strike anywhere matches and not expecting something to go up in flames.
Bush though far from perfect, did what needed to be done, and he had quite a set of brass ones to do it before he was elected for a 2nd term.
What folks seem to forget is that we asked the UN to give Iraq a clean bill on the WMD and they could not, even after 10 years of inspections and sanctions. We should take the OIL and pay ourselves back for all of our expense and trouble.
Just like Firearms, Knives, and baseball bats, WMD NBC are inanimate objects, It takes a heartless psychopath to use them to murder innocents.
Sadaam and his Sons, were heartless psychopathic killers, to leave them in charge of the 2nd largest proven oil reserves in the world, in the center of the middle east, and expect sanctions to prevent an eventual disaster, is just like giving a pyromaniac a 10 gallon can of gasoline and a case of strike anywhere matches and not expecting something to go up in flames.
Bush though far from perfect, did what needed to be done, and he had quite a set of brass ones to do it before he was elected for a 2nd term.
What folks seem to forget is that we asked the UN to give Iraq a clean bill on the WMD and they could not, even after 10 years of inspections and sanctions. We should take the OIL and pay ourselves back for all of our expense and trouble.
DigitalWarrior
Member
Jay
Did the UN invade? No. Is the US responsible for enforcing UN resolutions? No. Did the UN ask us to enforce the resolution? No, they asked us not to. Does the UN have anything to do with how we run this country? I agree, they do not.
I know that I cannot call absence of evidence a proof. But there was an absence of evidence that the weapons, which we have no evidence of, were destroyed, and it was good enough to invade another country.
When there are more than a thousand dead kids DO NOT DARE TO DREAM THAT YOU CAN KEEP THE JUSTIFICATION A SECRET.
What is funny is that this all started because of the my support of the ACLU because they object to secret evidence, secret trials, and secret laws.
Did the UN invade? No. Is the US responsible for enforcing UN resolutions? No. Did the UN ask us to enforce the resolution? No, they asked us not to. Does the UN have anything to do with how we run this country? I agree, they do not.
I know that I cannot call absence of evidence a proof. But there was an absence of evidence that the weapons, which we have no evidence of, were destroyed, and it was good enough to invade another country.
When there are more than a thousand dead kids DO NOT DARE TO DREAM THAT YOU CAN KEEP THE JUSTIFICATION A SECRET.
What is funny is that this all started because of the my support of the ACLU because they object to secret evidence, secret trials, and secret laws.
I have, certainly more closely than you have.
If we invaded, say, Sweden, you'd have a case. Sweden never had WMD, never used WMD, and doesn't present a threat to it's neighbors or world peace.
Saddam's Iraq had, by your own admission, WMD. It had, by your own admission, used WMD. It had invaded Iran, then Kuwait, was an enemy of Israel, supported terrorists, it was clearly a threat to world peace irregardless of WMD. It was in material breech of 14 UN resolutions, and committed multiple acts of war against the USA by firing on our aircraft and plotting to assassinate a sitting President.
As stated by myself and others, it's likely that the weapons were moved to Syria, in which case it's no suprise that none were found in Iraq.
Clearly you've been blinded by your irrational Bush-hate, where you can't see the obvious evidence before you. I bet even after WMD are found in Syria, you'll find another way to deny the obvious.
DigitalWarrior
Member
Evidence from Faux news
Ritter has an interesting article http://traprockpeace.org/scott_ritter_21may04.pdf
Does anyone know of a report whether the shell was fired (a dud) or not?
Ritter has an interesting article http://traprockpeace.org/scott_ritter_21may04.pdf
Does anyone know of a report whether the shell was fired (a dud) or not?
DigitalWarrior
Member
Hello Again Rebar
I know Iraq Sucked. I just believe that the charges of WMD are false. I may be wrong, I am interested in finding outmore about the Sarin Shell.
Which has exactly nothing to do with the US.
I do not remember hearing that these were mentioned in the pre-game.
I am a bit of a stickler for evidence. Please point me to the evidence so that I may see it.
My hatred is rational
No, in fact I am wrestling with the idea that maybe one 20 year old mis-placed unmarked shell may be the evidence I want to see, if it was shown to be unfired.
Jay Kominek
Member
It is becoming quite obvious that you, in fact, aren't even remotely interested in actually discussing this, but rather you are solely interested in shouting and making your opinion known.
We got the "DigitalWarrior really doesn't like Bush and has fun calling him a liar" memo about 20 posts back, thanks.
Go get a blog, you can continue your side of the conversation without our interruptions.
- Status