Do you believe there are/were WMDs in Iraq?

Do You believe there are/were WMDs in Iraq?

  • There have not been any WMDs since it became an issue

    Votes: 58 18.1%
  • Saddam was ready to restart his programs when the heat died down

    Votes: 41 12.8%
  • They were exported/destroyed on the eve of invasion

    Votes: 183 57.0%
  • They are still there somewhere

    Votes: 39 12.1%

  • Total voters
    321
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rebar, and you are a nazi

Now nothing you say can be considered. {nelson}HAA HAA{/nelson}

Ad-Hominum attacks are really useless.

Ritter says
1. Iraq said it test fired all the shells of this type.
2. You can tell that a dud shell was fired.
3. It is not unreasonable that 15 duds of this type may be lying around if 10% failed to explode. (He says that 10% is not unreasonable)
 
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.
This is becoming abundently obvious.

I'll point to the results of the poll:
17.27% agree with DW.

82.73% agree with me and the other reasonable folks here.

Guess ranting and raving and frothing mouth Bush-hating doesn't really convince people to your side of the argument, go figure.
 
Hey Jay

I am learning. I have learned in one thread that the ACLU does do some things I really do not like, and I am interested in the possibility that a single 20+ year old Sarin Shell might have been unfired showing some documents provided by Iraq to be false.

The quote you took from me indicated that I do not like secret justifications for a war. In a Republic. I cannot believe that anyone would take issue with me having a problem with a secret justification for a thousand dead kids. I might be factually wrong about evidence, in which case please show me.

Would you be OK with a thousand dead kids if Klinton had done it, then it turned out that the evidence he presented was not provable.
 
The sarin shells were not duds, they were loaded and ready to go.

The only reason that they did not cause more casualties is that they were not used as designed. They are meant to airburst, not to be used as IED's.

I think several of the posters on this thread are not going to believe anything others say. Do the search yourself, the info is out there. If you don't like Fox news it was carried on many other news agencies, they were just the first hit on my search.
 
Hey Rebar

Guess ranting and raving and frothing mouth Bush-hating doesn't really convince people to your side of the argument, go figure.
This is silly. My argument

"I have seen no evidence of WMD programs in Iraq during the lead-up to the invasion. Bush said he had evidence. So Bush lied."

I am actually pretty offended by being described as "ranting and raving and frothing mouth", because I believe it to be untrue.

I will check back later to see if there is any evidence of whether the shell was fired or unfired. I really appreciate the person who posted that.
 
Now nothing you say can be considered. {nelson}HAA HAA{/nelson}

Ad-Hominum attacks are really useless.

That was just ignorant.

The comments about Ritter go directly to his credibility, as someone who solicits underage children for sex is not particularly trustworthy.

Then again, you are willing to accept the word of a person who testified under oath before Congress that Iraq had WMD in 1998, and was a continuing threat to world peace, and then who changed his tune after being paid to do a pro-Iraqi propangnda piece. You like liars, but only when they are on their side, right?

Let's recap: Ritter formerly said that there were WMD and you reject that. After changing his mind following his being hired by Iraqi supporters, he claims that there is no WMD and you accept that. That speaks volumes to your desire to find anything to support your beliefs.
 
Ohen, that was awesome, I had to respond

Thanks, but whether it is a dud isn't related to the presence or absence of payload, unlike dummies (which is what I think you are thinking of). Duds have a payload which fails to activate as designed. Apparently it is pretty common for shells to be duds.

If the shell is a dud out on a field where 90% of the sarin gas was correctly deployed, it would have been left there, because most countries do not attempt to recover duds (very dangerous work, doubly so in a cloud ofpoison gas). The possibility exists that it lay out there for two decades until an insurgent looking for conventional duds came across it. Because it was not marked as a chemical weapon, it was wired as a conventional IED and did not go off.
 
Attack the argument, not the arguer

I thought that I could clearly illustrate Ad-Hominum through demonstration. For the record I do not know him to be a nazi, and even if he were, it does not impact the credibility of his argument.

Let's recap: Ritter formerly said that there were WMD and you reject that. After changing his mind following his being hired by Iraqi supporters, he claims that there is no WMD and you accept that. That speaks volumes to your desire to find anything to support your beliefs.

I am not trusting Ritter. Ritter gave a possible explenation (see above), and it sounded reasonable. If it is not I am also interested in that fact.
 
None of the four choices given suits me, so I decline to take the poll. However, if a simple "yes" or "no" were used, I would have chosen "yes." I think that they were, or perhaps are there, but any evidence has been so screwed around and trampled on in the intervening time that if anything is discovered it will be by pure chance or because someone wants a reward. In that sense, it's also like the Kennedy assassination. It doesn't matter now who, or how many people did it, because mythologies have become firmly established, and people have chosen which myth or myths they believe, and deny what they don't.
When it comes to matters like these, that strongly capture the public imagination and polarize opinion so strongly, we see confirmed that the strongest force in the universe isn't nuclear power, it's the human will to belief. And when it gets strong enough, it is transformed into that other thing, where we say "Don't confuse me with the facts." In the case of WMD, we lack facts; it does not mean the facts aren't there.
 
I am interested in the possibility that a single 20+ year old Sarin Shell might have been unfired showing some documents provided by Iraq to be false.

The round was described as having come from a stockpile, not from a firing range.

As for Iraq's documents being false, all you have to do is look to the report it filed with the UN. The UN completely discredited the report, saying that Iraq failed to account for hundreds of tons of WMD material. Hundreds of tons. This stuff doesn't just evaporate, and Iraq could never say "we destroyed it here." It was always "it never existed" or "we destroyed it but won't tell you where." We haven't found any of those WMD destruction sites, which would have easily discovered chemical tell-tales. So, given that Iraq had the weapons to begin with (as evidenced by their mass use) and it seems unlikely that all of the weapons material calculated to exist by the UN (including Ritter) was fake, I'd say the evidence strongly indicates Iraq was lying, and those weapons are currently located elsewhere.
 
I thought that I could clearly illustrate Ad-Hominum through demonstration. For the record I do not know him to be a nazi, and even if he were, it does not impact the credibility of his argument.

Except that your demonstration failed utterly. A Nazi is a member of a political party, and that membership, while disgusting, goes to one's character, not credibility. Even Nazis are capable of truthfully conveying information and arguments, even if they choose to do something different than you would with that information and argument. It'd be the equivalent of saying someone is a liar because they are a Republican or Democrat.

But someone who preys on children in a sexual way demonstrates a complete disregard for both law and morality, by attempting to seek out the most vulnearable. That's a serious character issue in itself. Combined with his taking money from Iraqi supporters and his having clearly lied during either his Congressional testimony or afterwards, Rebar's accusations go directly to Ritter's credibility, or lack thereof.
 
Buzz

Iraq-
You say the round was described as having come from a stockpile. Please let me know who described it that way. Where did they get their information? This is pretty important. "They say" isn't good enough.

As far as documents go. I want to find a lie. If they say all the shells were fired, and we say "here is one that wasn't", I am happy. Them failing to account for something is much closer to a mistake than a lie.

Ritter-
The devil himself is capable of telling the truth sometimes. We should examine the content of his argument. Maybe he made a mistake or maybe he lied. Calling him names does not cut the mustard as a counter-argument.
 
Perhaps Bush can't reveal the "proof" you demand because to do so would compromise a HUMINT or ELINT source that is still active - much like the Republicans had to drop plans to announce that FDR had to know that the Pearl Harbor attack was coming because we were reading their codes, only to be dissuaded by General Marshal himself, who revealed to the Republican party leadership that those codes were still being used, and that to reveal their compromise would put American lives at risk by forcing the Japanese to change codes. It would have been fool's play to "dummy up" some evidence by this time - not to mention all those truck convoys to Syria.

(And for those who don't believe FDR knew about PH, as Winston Churchill claims he did, try following the invoices of medical supplies and equipment the Red Cross rushed to Hawaii...in OCTOBER, 1941!)
 
The devil himself is capable of telling the truth sometimes.
Seems like your measure of "truth" is if it makes Bush look bad, it must be true.

I also point out that you completely ignore the results of your own poll, why is that? Don't like the results?
 
I cannot believe that anyone would take issue with me having a problem with a secret justification for a thousand dead kids.
The figure's slightly higher. The current estimated bodycount is in the region of 98,000 civilians, so 1,000 children wouldn't be accurate.

As to the idea that Hussein, on being invaded by a force whose stated goal is his overthrow (and pretty obviously, his later execution or at a wildly improbable best, life imprisonment), opted to take his most potent weapons and destroy them or give them to potentially hostile nations or indeed, nations he'd recently fought ten-year-long bloody wars against... well, let's say I'd believe the tooth fairy had spirited them away before I'd believe that. The man's a tyrant and a murderer, not an idiot. (If carrying a pistol when being mugged, would you stop to take it out and dissassemble it and scatter the pieces to the four winds in case pointing it at the mugger made him angry?)

And as to the idea that WMD were actually found? Yeeesh. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Look folks, the kind of thing Bush was saying he had wasn't the kind of thing you can tuck under a bed and hide easily. We're talking about weapons that have limited shelf lives, require not inconsiderable facilities to produce and store, and which can't be hidden away like a coin that David Copperfield has been left within arm's reach of. We're not talking about one or two 20-year-old dud shells that turn up as part of roadside bombs rigged together from whatever the resistance/rebels/insurgents/terrorists/freedom fighters/misunderstood youngsters who just need a great big hug/murderers could find. We're talking about large numbers of bombs and large amounts of gas and toxins, we're talking about a lot of them, we're talking production plants and assembly plants and mobile labs and all the things in those nice photos Powell pointed at in the UN in an attempt to evoke memories of the Cuban missile crisis. And after two years of controlling the country, after one of the fastest occupations since the roman army attacked the britons during their tea break, and after dedicated units with military support scoured the country with all the intelligence that noone else was allowed to get a peek at prior to all the loud bangs and house&garden redistributions, nothing has been found. Not actual WMDs, not potential WMDs, not disassembled WMDs, not bits for making WMDs, not tools for making bits for making WMDs, not facilities for storing WMDs, not destroyed WMDs, not convoys of WMDs being shipped out of the country while JSTARS aircraft tracked every moving metal object in Iraq larger than an oil drum, nothing. Basicly, there weren't any. We were had. (Well, when I say we, I pretty much have to leave out those who believed the UN weapons inspectors who were politely coughing and trying to point out that they'd been searching the country for a few years now and while the incumbents weren't people you'd have a pint with after work, they were fairly certain that they wouldn't have slipped any sarin into the beer, if only because they didn't have any, and much preferred just shooting you in the kneecaps anyway).

(And no, a set of ten-year-old drawings dug up from under a rose bush does not constitute sufficent proof to justify closing on a hundred thousand civilian deaths).
 
opted to take his most potent weapons and destroy them or give them to potentially hostile nations or indeed, nations he'd recently fought ten-year-long bloody wars against... well, let's say I'd believe the tooth fairy had spirited them away before I'd believe that.
Saddam fought the 10 year war with Iran, not Syria. Despite that, it's a fact that during the first gulf war, he did have his aircraft fly to Iran to keep them from being destroyed by the coalition. The weapons are potent only as a terror weapon, against trained troops with NBC gear they are not, especially as his troops were not trained or equipped with the right gear. Much better to keep them hidden and "in play" rather than wasted. Syria has never been a threat to Iraq, in fact they were both Baa'thist dictatorships. For the right price, I can definitly see the greedy corrupt Syrian government hiding WMD for Saddam.

Guess the tooth fairy will be paying a visit to you soon.
 
Saddam fought the 10 year war with Iran, not Syria.
Yes, I know. It has, however, been suggested that the WMDs were smuggled to Iran as well as Syria.

The weapons are potent only as a terror weapon, against trained troops with NBC gear they are not,
And since 9mm rounds aren't as effective as .45s, you wouldn't bother trying to shoot the mugger if you only had a 9mm, right?

especially as his troops were not trained or equipped with the right gear.
Uh-huh. And of course, he'd never have pulled the trigger when it might have hurt Iraqis. :rolleyes:

Much better to keep them hidden and "in play" rather than wasted.
Really? Well, I guess they're just waiting until the insurgency gets started then, before they ship a single working chemical weapon in for use in an IED, right?
 
Yes

Digital,
Yes. My nephew was there on the big push from the border to Bagdhad. He is in the 101st Airborne and is getting ready to head back again. During his first tour, he was telling me about a lot about some of the evidence that they were finding in their search for WMD.
Example: they went in to a large plant in one of the cities...they had to back out quickly...got high readings of radioactive material. They secured the perimeter and he said that our specialists went in suited up and brought out stuff, but he doesn't know what happened to what they took out of the plant.
Another time, another city, they went in to a large building which was supposed to store some suspicious materials. Again, infantry went in to secure the building...there were vats of some kind of chemical that had them choking on it so eventually they were ordered to leave the building and secure the perimeter...on top of that, he said that after some time their boots started to turn rubbery and they had to toss the boots because they figured it was some kind of caustic chemical. He said before they left there were a lot of containers of this stuff.
This is not conclusive evidence of course, but it certainly is suspicious and could have been materials that put together could have been used against our troops.
He said that our guys were moving so quickly through enemy lines, that he saw a lot of gear that the Iraqi's had and they were being searched as they surrendered. He said our guys were very nervous because there was a lot of new nerve gas gear that the Iraqis were carrying. Shows what they might have used on our guys or they were worried that we might use it. Either way they were geared up for gas attacks.
All circumstantial, but he was there and a lot of the troops there thought the same thing...a lot of evidence that could add up to WMD.
What do you think?
 
He is in the 101st Airborne
they went in to a large plant in one of the cities...they had to back out quickly...got high readings of radioactive material. They secured the perimeter and he said that our specialists went in suited up and brought out stuff, but he doesn't know what happened to what they took out of the plant.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/apr03/132707.asp
Three Iraqi warehouses filled with 2,500 barrels of uranium that could be enriched for nuclear weapons - plus 150 radioactive isotopes that could be used for deadly "dirty bombs" - lay unguarded for several days this week as Iraqi mobs swirled around. The facility, known as Location C, was Iraq's only internationally sanctioned storage site for nuclear material.
<snip>
The U.N. nuclear agency's inspectors have visited Tuwaitha about two dozen times, including a dozen checks carried out since December, most recently Feb. 6. An expert familiar with U.N. nuclear inspections told The Associated Press that it was implausible to believe that U.S. forces had uncovered anything new at the site. Instead, the official said, the Marines apparently broke U.N. seals designed to ensure the materials aren't diverted for weapons use - and don't end up in the wrong hands.

In other words, your nephew was sent in to secure a building that was known to contain thousands of tons of radioactive material without prior warning or training or even briefing - and not until well after the building could have been raided a dozen times over for the low-grade radioactive isotopes inside which wouldn't make a bomb without a factory the size of a city block, but which would act as rather nasty toxins if strapped to a bomb and blown up.


Another time, another city, they went in to a large building which was supposed to store some suspicious materials. Again, infantry went in to secure the building...there were vats of some kind of chemical that had them choking on it so eventually they were ordered to leave the building and secure the perimeter...on top of that, he said that after some time their boots started to turn rubbery and they had to toss the boots because they figured it was some kind of caustic chemical. He said before they left there were a lot of containers of this stuff.

http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=ja03rothstein_018

April 7: The Washington Post relays the Pentagon announcement that it has found the "smoking gun"--the 101st Airborne has located a large cache of chemical weapon-laden missiles southwest of Baghdad; buried "bioweapons labs" are also reported found.

April 10: U.S. military commanders announce they have secured the Tuwaitha nuclear facility.

April 11: U.S. military commanders reveal that before April 10, Tuwaitha, a site known to contain various radioactive materials, was left unguarded for days. During that time Iraqi civilians looted the facility, almost certainly carrying away contaminated materials.

April 12: The Guardian reports that the U.S. and British governments have rejected the idea that experienced U.N. weapon inspectors should return to Iraq. Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports that Saddam Hussein's science adviser, Lt. Gen. Amer al-Saadi has surrendered, but insists Iraq had no WMD.

April 13: The Washington Post reports that the "smoking gun" chemical weapon found on April 7 is some sort of pesticide, probably used to combat mosquitos; as for the April 7 report that chemical weapons missiles had been found, the Pentagon "denies any knowledge of this alleged discovery."

April 15: CNN reports that buried bioweapons labs turn out to be crates of new, unused laboratory equipment (test tubes and the like).

Basicly, they found a chemical storage depot. Chemical, in this case, not being a shorthand way of saying "chemical weapon", but just industrial chemicals. Iraq was, don't forget, the most industrialised nation in the Middle East (apart from Israel) prior to '91, and despite sanctions was still in the running for the title up to the invasion.

This is not conclusive evidence of course, but it certainly is suspicious and could have been materials that put together could have been used against our troops.
Yup. Sort of like the way you could raid a high school chemistry lab and build a rather effective bomb with the contents. Or just steal some acid and throw it in someone's face. But it'd be hard to call those weapons of mass destruction...

Look at the rest of that timeline:

April 20: The Washington Post says the Pentagon intends to form a 1,000-man "Iraq Survey Group" to hunt for weapons of mass destruction. Meanwhile, Britain's Independent sums up what has been discovered about Iraqi WMD so far: The U.S. intelligence report that the nuclear facilities at Tuwaitha had been rebuilt was a "sham"; a claim that Iraq had bought uranium in Niger was based on falsified documents; and the aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq were not for gas centrifuges to produce weapon-grade uranium. The United States claimed that Iraq was expanding its chemical facilities, but in reality the chemical site at Al Qaqaa was bombed during the first Gulf War, and its chemical weapons were then removed and destroyed by the United Nations. As for the pre-war claim that Iraq was building a dangerous unmanned aerial vehicle for the purpose of spraying bioweapons into the atmosphere, a single dismantled drone found by U.N. inspectors was not reported because it was not a prohibited item. Secretary of State Colin Powell's claim at the United Nations in February, that Iraq had weaponized ricin, was misleading, to say the least. The truth, surely known to U.S. intelligence, was that Iraq conducted a single test in November 1990, which failed, after which the ricin project was abandoned. Similarly, no evidence to date supports Powell's other claims--that Iraq engaged in research on smallpox, or that it had any VX, mustard gas, botulin, or anthrax.

April 21: Questions are raised about how seriously the U.S. government believed its own claims about WMD, considering that, as the New York Times reports, weapons search teams do not have adequate transport and are having to rely on borrowed helicopters. On the same day, in the same paper, reporter Judith Miller declares that an unnamed Iraqi scientist has identified an unnamed site where, he says, Iraq destroyed unnamed chemical and biological weapons before the war. Miller calls this the "most important discovery to date in the hunt for illegal weapons."

April 24: The Washington Post reports that the reason U.S. forces waited three weeks after reaching Tuwaitha before inspecting it was due to an internal U.S. government dispute about who would be in charge. The BBC quotes the editor of Jane's Intelligence Digest, Alex Standish, who says reports of Iraq's WMD were "politically driven."

April 25: President George W. Bush says WMD may not ever be found in Iraq.

April 27: New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman says it doesn't matter if no WMD are found. On the other hand, Raymond Whitaker, writing in the Independent, says the road to war was paved with lies and that intelligence agencies were at the mercy of political appointees who distorted intelligence reports to fan the flames. The story about the purchase of uranium from Niger, based on "crude forgeries," had been known to be false for more than a year. As for Scud missiles, not only were none fired, none were found. The Blair government plagiarized outdated graduate student papers and called them a dossier on Iraqi weapons. Other questionable information came from an exile group, the Iraqi National Congress, which was paid to "come up with" claims. It's odd, Whitaker concludes, that if U.S. and British authorities were so concerned about finding WMD that within a few days they diverted some of the search teams to other tasks. Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times reports that David Kay, a pre-war supporter of the administration's position, says of the U.S. WMD search: "My impression is this has been a very low priority so far, and they've put very little effort into it."

April 28: Associated Press reports that some 55-gallon drums previously found in northern Iraq and described by U.S. military personnel as containing "blister agent" contain rocket fuel.

April 29: Surrendered scientist Nassir Hindawi tells CNN he was the only person in Iraq smart enough to make powdered anthrax (about which, he adds, he kept quiet). Hindawi describes Rihab Taha, Iraq's famous "Dr. Germ," as a former student of his who lacked practical abilities. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw is described by Independent correspondent Ben Russell as "hinting" that WMD may never be found, although Straw continues to insist that Iraq "had them recently."

May 1: President Bush lands on the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln and declares an end to major combat operations in Iraq. On the same day, but reported in the May 17 Washington Post, U.S. special weapons hunters break down the doors of "Special Security Organization Al Hayat." The padlocked innermost storage room is found to be filled with vacuum cleaners.

May 7: The Associated Press reports that Lt. Gen. William Wallace of the army's Fifth Corps says there is "plenty of documentary evidence" of WMD coming from "lower-tier Iraqis." Wallace offers no examples.

May 9: The Associated Press reports that Col. Richard McPhee says his teams have found no chemical or biological weapons so far, and that they might never be found, but he thinks they will find an "infrastructure." Or, as Stephen Cambone, undersecretary of defense for intelligence says, a program for WMD will be found, just no WMD. "How it was configured and how they intended to use it" is the problem, according to Cambone.

May 11: The Los Angeles Times reports that before the war U.N. teams tracked down what U.S. intelligence had told them were "decontamination trucks" only to find they were fire trucks. Other information provided to U.N. inspectors was also less than helpful: "Sometimes it was amazingly specific. You know, 'Go into the basement, there's a door marked 4, go in there, then there's a long corridor, then you'll find a room filled with equipment.' Except there never was."

May 11: The Washington Post reports that the group directing the search for WMD, the 75th Exploitation Task Force, is planning to leave Iraq.

May 13: The Washington Post's Harold Meyerson calls pre-war information "faith-based intelligence." But Kenneth Timmerman, writing in Insight magazine, says that only liberals care whether Iraq actually had WMD.

May 13: The New York Times reports that "suspicious trailers," which could be mobile bioweapons labs have been found--but they contain no biological materials.

May 17: The Washington Post reports that White House communication director Dan Bartlett believes there is proof that Iraq had a WMD program because "the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution that confirmed it."

May 22: Peter Jennings, introducing a story on ABC-TV's nightly news, summed up the record. "U.S. intelligence officials say they have concluded that the two tractor-trailers, which they found in northern Iraq during the war, are laboratories for making biological weapons. But they have found absolutely no trace of biological agents in them. Nine weeks after the war began, there is no tangible evidence of any biological or chemical weapons in Iraq at all."
And there still isn't any.


He said that our guys were moving so quickly through enemy lines, that he saw a lot of gear that the Iraqi's had and they were being searched as they surrendered. He said our guys were very nervous because there was a lot of new nerve gas gear that the Iraqis were carrying. Shows what they might have used on our guys or they were worried that we might use it. Either way they were geared up for gas attacks.
Given that gas was often used in the iran-iraq war, which a lot of them would have fought in, the fact that they were prepared for gas attacks is about as surprising as finding that someone who suffers from migranes has got headache tablets in the house.
(Not to mention that US soldiers were issued with tear gas at the time, in violation of the Hague conventions and the Chemical weapons convention...)
 
Come on rebar

The devil himself is capable of telling the truth sometimes.

Seems like your measure of "truth" is if it makes Bush look bad, it must be true.
Please find where I said anything indicating this. If you find it, i will apologize for it. If you do not find it, you apologize.

I said "LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE" Please, for god's sake LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE. If you believe that he is a bad guy "LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE".

I investigated the shell. If it is unfired, Saddam lied. If it was fired, it is a likly dud that was never recovered. I cannot find anything related to it's state.

I have heard:
They moved weapons into neigboring countries. I have seen no evidence.
He had a large program. I have seen no evidence.
He had them before. Everyone knows that.
He used them on his own people. Everyone knows that.
The sarin shell was a part of a cache. I have seen no evidence.

Why is everyone so pissed off that I want to see evidence?
 
And about me ignoring a poll

The reason I asked was to get the distribution of opinions on THR. Just out of curiousity. Opinion has nothing to do with what really happened.

So as far as adressing a poll, I don't need to because it doesn't say anything other than the distribution of opinions of those on THR who chose to participate in the poll.
 
About the poll, I'm sure if it went your way, you'd be crowing it to the skys.

There is plenty of evidence that the weapons were moved to Syria, look it up. If they were, then everything Bush and his administration said was true.

Lets look at this man Bush, that you hate so much:
-liberated millions in Afganistan
-liberated millions in Iraq
-caused Lybia to shut down it's WMD programs
-shut down Iraq's WMD programs
-shut down terrorist training camps in Afganistan and Iraq
-historic elections in Afganistan
-historic elections in Iraq
-historic elections in Saudi Arabia
-brought jihadists from all over the world to Iraq, where they were killed
-people of Lebanon rose up against Syrian occupiers
-destabilised the Syrian and Iranian governments
-placed strategic bases in the heart of middle east
-significant and real progress in the Israel-palistinian issue
-democratic ideas infecting the rest of the middle east

and much more. Bush will go down in history as one of the greatest Presidents in modern times. How that must gall you.
 
Rebar, would you agree that this is tiring.

I could not find anything I would call "evidence" relating to Saddam moving weapons to Syria. That is why I asked you. You seem to believe it, and I would presume your belief is founded upon knowledge, so where did you get you knowledge.

NO, honestly I wouldn't say anything about the poll, because it is a measure of opinion, which has no bearing on anything. I would have been suprised if the poll had gone (no weapons/weapons destroyed). As it was the poll fell exactly were I thought it would.

I was much more interested in the evidence part of it. I am suprised that only one person was able to present anything like evidence supporting his view.

And I never said that Bush was incapable of doing good. He is perfectly capable of doing good. He has done good. But I think that lying to me was bad.

Wow, I think that I am going to stop responding to you becuase you list "shut down Iraq's WMD programs" as an achievement. That betrays a serious flaw in reasoning. I have not seen, nor have you provided evidence that there were Iraqi WMD programs. That is what the whole discussion is about. You accuse me of irrational Bush hating. Where exactly was I irrational? Actually I do not care. You will not provide evidence, so I cannot learn from you.

There are other flaws in your list, but I don't care to discuss thedm, and this isn't the place anyway. We were talking about proof of WMDs in Iraq in the leadup to the US invasion.
 
I could not find anything I would call "evidence" relating to Saddam moving weapons to Syria.
You are a liar, or you didn't even bother looking. The most basic google search turned up this:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/2/230625.shtml
http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=86742
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/25/ixnewstop.html
http://www.worldthreats.com/russia_former_ussr/Russia Moved WMDs.htm
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1340941,00.html
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=670123
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/052258.php
http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/aug/16iraq.htm
http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/Missing Iraqi WMD.htm

You do not discuss in good faith sir. The above links were painfully easy to find, either you saw them, and ignored them because they contradicted your view of Bush-hate, or you were too damned lazy to bother.

NO, honestly I wouldn't say anything about the poll, because it is a measure of opinion, which has no bearing on anything.
Yet you posted this topic as a poll, the poll overwelmingly supports my view, yet you think I'm the crackpot. Go figure.

I have not seen, nor have you provided evidence that there were Iraqi WMD programs.
what part of 60,000 gassed Kurds and 100,000 gassed Iranians didn't you understand? First you admit that he had them, then you demand evidence that he had them, now you're upset because people think you're irrational?

That betrays a serious flaw in reasoning.
There are major flaws in reasoning here, but not on my part.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top