Weapons of Mass destruction found.

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
There was never any doubt that Sadam had possesed WMDs, just that he didn't have mass quantities of them when we invaded his country.

Yes, I know that excuse has already been raised here. And like I said - it is still a serious issue. If there is 1 then there are most likely more. 1 or 1000 of these shells is serious. Ofcourse the argument now goes from "No WMDs found" to "not enough WMDs found"

CkG

That's a big ASSumption.

I mean, come on, CkG! Bush and Rumsfeld knew Saddam had stockpiles and Rumsfeld even knew where they were.


Well....we're waiting!

He was wrong? You even been wrong? You know I have! Whole world had bad intel on this cause Saddam knew he didn't even really need the WMD's as long as someone thought he had them the effect was the same. Terror.

I have been wrong, it did not cost tenths of thousands of innocent people their lifes.

There is a difference.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
There was never any doubt that Sadam had possesed WMDs, just that he didn't have mass quantities of them when we invaded his country.

And, for some reason, that very simple fact is the cause of a huge rift between political viewpoints.

Amazing how the Bush-fans cannot understand the fact that Saddam used to have them but no longer does.

you're totally wrong here. these weapons that he used to have he supposedly destroyed. or have you not read the numerous accounts of how certain weapons, more specificlly wmd's, were unaccounted for!

Round and round she goes.
Where she stops, nobody knows.
Climb aboard the spinning wheel.
Listen to them rant and squeal.


I will no longer waste my time trying to debate with a 12 year-old.

 

[rile0161]

Let's try to look at this whole iraq situation from another perspective, as this is really getting old.

Let's say that you have some children, or a wife, or a treasured car, or an old Commie 64, or something.

Now let's say that you've got someone in your neighborhood who has caused some problems before. He attacked another family in the neighborhood, he's broken into other houses, and has made threatening hateful remarks about you, your children, your wife, etc. You have tried talking with this person, but he remains beligerant. You were recently accosted by someone similar to this neighbor.

What would you do in this situation? Would you wait for him to actually do something and possibly harm those who you are responsible for? Or would you try to protect yourself first?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: conjur
That's a big ASSumption.

I mean, come on, CkG! Bush and Rumsfeld knew Saddam had stockpiles and Rumsfeld even knew where they were.


Well....we're waiting!

He was wrong? You even been wrong? You know I have! Whole world had bad intel on this cause Saddam knew he didn't even really need the WMD's as long as someone thought he had them the effect was the same. Terror.

Hey! Another customer for the GOP Spinning Wheel of [Mis]Fortune!

Which is it? Did they have them or didn't they? A whole shell was found and here's "proof" he had them! Oh wait, Rumsfeld was wrong, Saddam *didn't* have them. Oh, but we have this WMD that was found. But, wait....

<dizzy>

 

[SmokeRngs]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
There was never any doubt that Sadam had possesed WMDs, just that he didn't have mass quantities of them when we invaded his country.

And, for some reason, that very simple fact is the cause of a huge rift between political viewpoints.

Amazing how the Bush-fans cannot understand the fact that Saddam used to have them but no longer does.

you're totally wrong here. these weapons that he used to have he supposedly destroyed. or have you not read the numerous accounts of how certain weapons, more specificlly wmd's, were unaccounted for!

Round and round she goes.
Where she stops, nobody knows.
Climb aboard the spinning wheel.
Listen to them rant and squeal.


I will no longer waste my time trying to debate with a 12 year-old.

I'm guessing that's because you cannot refute the point that Saddam had known quantities of the WMDs and yet they have not been accounted for, by anyone including the all powerful UN inspectors.

As usual with this point, it has never been refuted. It must mean that when something goes unaccounted for it just doesn't exist anymore. Doesn't matter if it was moved somewhere else or hidden, it hasn't been found so it doesn't exist and never really did.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

How about it heartsurgeon? I called you on your vile lies about my position. I reposted what I really said above, for all to see -- in context. You've evaded addressing it so far. What's the problem? Here's your chance to show a little integrity. Will you support Bush by addressing my points, or will you continue to bleat your disinformation and diversions?

Heartsurgeon has been asked to address this but refuses to do so. Why?

I've also asked CAD (who is adamant about taking things in context) to kindly explain the importance of context to heartsurgeon, but he also refuses to do so. Why?

Three words come to mind when thinking of these two...hypocrates, cowards, and pathetic.

 

[SmokeRngs]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: conjur
That's a big ASSumption.

I mean, come on, CkG! Bush and Rumsfeld knew Saddam had stockpiles and Rumsfeld even knew where they were.


Well....we're waiting!

He was wrong? You even been wrong? You know I have! Whole world had bad intel on this cause Saddam knew he didn't even really need the WMD's as long as someone thought he had them the effect was the same. Terror.

Hey! Another customer for the GOP Spinning Wheel of [Mis]Fortune!

Which is it? Did they have them or didn't they? A whole shell was found and here's "proof" he had them! Oh wait, Rumsfeld was wrong, Saddam *didn't* have them. Oh, but we have this WMD that was found. But, wait....

<dizzy>

Prove the unaccounted for WMDs were destroyed or disposed of. Until then, you have no argument about the WMDs.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
There was never any doubt that Sadam had possesed WMDs, just that he didn't have mass quantities of them when we invaded his country.

And, for some reason, that very simple fact is the cause of a huge rift between political viewpoints.

Amazing how the Bush-fans cannot understand the fact that Saddam used to have them but no longer does.

you're totally wrong here. these weapons that he used to have he supposedly destroyed. or have you not read the numerous accounts of how certain weapons, more specificlly wmd's, were unaccounted for!

Round and round she goes.
Where she stops, nobody knows.
Climb aboard the spinning wheel.
Listen to them rant and squeal.


I will no longer waste my time trying to debate with a 12 year-old.

I'm guessing that's because you cannot refute the point that Saddam had known quantities of the WMDs and yet they have not been accounted for, by anyone including the all powerful UN inspectors.

As usual with this point, it has never been refuted. It must mean that when something goes unaccounted for it just doesn't exist anymore. Doesn't matter if it was moved somewhere else or hidden, it hasn't been found so it doesn't exist and never really did.

So we invaded iraq to see that they weapons really where lost? I thought the bsuh administation stated they knew where the WMD were.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: conjur
That's a big ASSumption.

I mean, come on, CkG! Bush and Rumsfeld knew Saddam had stockpiles and Rumsfeld even knew where they were.


Well....we're waiting!

He was wrong? You even been wrong? You know I have! Whole world had bad intel on this cause Saddam knew he didn't even really need the WMD's as long as someone thought he had them the effect was the same. Terror.

Hey! Another customer for the GOP Spinning Wheel of [Mis]Fortune!

Which is it? Did they have them or didn't they? A whole shell was found and here's "proof" he had them! Oh wait, Rumsfeld was wrong, Saddam *didn't* have them. Oh, but we have this WMD that was found. But, wait....

<dizzy>

Prove the unaccounted for WMDs were destroyed or disposed of. Until then, you have no argument about the WMDs.

Don't have to. Don't have to prove they don't exist. The administration said they did exist. They said they had proof. They said they knew where they were. Saddam hid his entire arsenal in a month? And he hid them so well that even a team of hundreds and hundreds of inspectors working with Iraqi officials and experts cannot find them?

Where's that proof?

I'm seeing a whole bunch of nothing.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
There was never any doubt that Sadam had possesed WMDs, just that he didn't have mass quantities of them when we invaded his country.

And, for some reason, that very simple fact is the cause of a huge rift between political viewpoints.

Amazing how the Bush-fans cannot understand the fact that Saddam used to have them but no longer does.

you're totally wrong here. these weapons that he used to have he supposedly destroyed. or have you not read the numerous accounts of how certain weapons, more specificlly wmd's, were unaccounted for!

Round and round she goes.
Where she stops, nobody knows.
Climb aboard the spinning wheel.
Listen to them rant and squeal.


I will no longer waste my time trying to debate with a 12 year-old.

I'm guessing that's because you cannot refute the point that Saddam had known quantities of the WMDs and yet they have not been accounted for, by anyone including the all powerful UN inspectors.

As usual with this point, it has never been refuted. It must mean that when something goes unaccounted for it just doesn't exist anymore. Doesn't matter if it was moved somewhere else or hidden, it hasn't been found so it doesn't exist and never really did.

<sigh>

You see, we had these people called U.N Weapons Inspectors as part of this thing called UNSCOM that were tasked throughout the 90s to dismantle Saddam's programs of WMDs. Much work was done along that front.

When inspectors went back into the country just prior to Bush's romp in the sand (that's cost thousands of lives and injured many thousands more and cost ~$150billion), they found a few minor violations but those were destroyed. They also found evidence of destruction of other WMD components such as Anthrax. They didn't find definitive proof that 100% were destroyed but we've found nothing after searching for over a year with hundreds and hundreds of inspectors scouring the landscape w/the help of Iraqi officials and experts. Just because you don't find anything doesn't mean it must still exist.

Sooo...what's that tell us? That Bush went to war on a S.W.A.G.!

 

[SmokeRngs]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
There was never any doubt that Sadam had possesed WMDs, just that he didn't have mass quantities of them when we invaded his country.

And, for some reason, that very simple fact is the cause of a huge rift between political viewpoints.

Amazing how the Bush-fans cannot understand the fact that Saddam used to have them but no longer does.

you're totally wrong here. these weapons that he used to have he supposedly destroyed. or have you not read the numerous accounts of how certain weapons, more specificlly wmd's, were unaccounted for!

Round and round she goes.
Where she stops, nobody knows.
Climb aboard the spinning wheel.
Listen to them rant and squeal.


I will no longer waste my time trying to debate with a 12 year-old.

I'm guessing that's because you cannot refute the point that Saddam had known quantities of the WMDs and yet they have not been accounted for, by anyone including the all powerful UN inspectors.

As usual with this point, it has never been refuted. It must mean that when something goes unaccounted for it just doesn't exist anymore. Doesn't matter if it was moved somewhere else or hidden, it hasn't been found so it doesn't exist and never really did.

<sigh>

You see, we had these people called U.N Weapons Inspectors as part of this thing called UNSCOM that were tasked throughout the 90s to dismantle Saddam's programs of WMDs. Much work was done along that front.

When inspectors went back into the country just prior to Bush's romp in the sand (that's cost thousands of lives and injured many thousands more and cost ~$150billion), they found a few minor violations but those were destroyed. They also found evidence of destruction of other WMD components such as Anthrax. They didn't find definitive proof that 100% were destroyed but we've found nothing after searching for over a year with hundreds and hundreds of inspectors scouring the landscape w/the help of Iraqi officials and experts. Just because you don't find anything doesn't mean it must still exist.

Sooo...what's that tell us? That Bush went to war on a S.W.A.G.!

Again, it tells us that there is no proof that the weapons were destroyed. From that, you must logically assume that they do exist. Just because you cannot find them does not mean they no longer exist. How hard is it to realize this?

Again, nothing has been found, does that mean they just disappeared? Until it can be explained with proof that they no longer exist, logic dictates that they do exist. I also don't buy much into the argument about evidence of some WMD componants being destroyed meaning that everything that wasn't found was destroyed. If Saddam destroyed it all, why doesn't he have proof of it? You demand every little detail and fact for proof from the US govt before you will believe anything, yet you will take Saddam's word with no worthwhile evidence and proof that everything was destroyed and he had nothing.

You dig your own grave when you speak on this subject. You have no proof that nothing existed, yet you go on the assumption that everything was gone. You do not take into account the difficulty of searching an area of land that large, the number of hiding places possible for this stuff and the possibility that much of it could have been moved.

Your argument that the govt had the exact location of everything is null and void. Things could have been moved, decoys could have been put out in the first place, etc. The point of WMDs is not exactly where Saddam had them, rather, it was the fact that he had them. Due to your admission that there is no proof that everything was destroyed - according to the UN itself, there is a lot of stuff unaccounted for that they have proof existed - I don't see how you can say that the WMDs don't exist.

My argument has proof that the WMDs existed. Your argument just says that the unaccounted for WMDs just haven't been found. That is not proof that they no longer exist. It's just proof that they haven't been found.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
There was never any doubt that Sadam had possesed WMDs, just that he didn't have mass quantities of them when we invaded his country.

And, for some reason, that very simple fact is the cause of a huge rift between political viewpoints.

Amazing how the Bush-fans cannot understand the fact that Saddam used to have them but no longer does.

you're totally wrong here. these weapons that he used to have he supposedly destroyed. or have you not read the numerous accounts of how certain weapons, more specificlly wmd's, were unaccounted for!

Round and round she goes.
Where she stops, nobody knows.
Climb aboard the spinning wheel.
Listen to them rant and squeal.


I will no longer waste my time trying to debate with a 12 year-old.

I'm guessing that's because you cannot refute the point that Saddam had known quantities of the WMDs and yet they have not been accounted for, by anyone including the all powerful UN inspectors.

As usual with this point, it has never been refuted. It must mean that when something goes unaccounted for it just doesn't exist anymore. Doesn't matter if it was moved somewhere else or hidden, it hasn't been found so it doesn't exist and never really did.

<sigh>

You see, we had these people called U.N Weapons Inspectors as part of this thing called UNSCOM that were tasked throughout the 90s to dismantle Saddam's programs of WMDs. Much work was done along that front.

When inspectors went back into the country just prior to Bush's romp in the sand (that's cost thousands of lives and injured many thousands more and cost ~$150billion), they found a few minor violations but those were destroyed. They also found evidence of destruction of other WMD components such as Anthrax. They didn't find definitive proof that 100% were destroyed but we've found nothing after searching for over a year with hundreds and hundreds of inspectors scouring the landscape w/the help of Iraqi officials and experts. Just because you don't find anything doesn't mean it must still exist.

Sooo...what's that tell us? That Bush went to war on a S.W.A.G.!

Again, it tells us that there is no proof that the weapons were destroyed. From that, you must logically assume that they do exist.

There's your fallacy right there. That is not a logical step. That's a leap of faith.

 

[Spencer278]

Again, it tells us that there is no proof that the weapons were destroyed. From that, you must logically assume that they do exist. Just because you cannot find them does not mean they no longer exist. How hard is it to realize this?

What logic class did you fail. Let me demonstate

I have proof that I purchased 12 sausages. I have no proof that any where destroyed or used. I search my fridge and I can only find 2 so logically I can assume the other 10 must exist. Can you send over bush to find my launch for tommorow?

 

[josphII]

conjour,

so you're telling me that the un weapons inspectors were allowed to do their job?

talk about revisionist history

 

[GDT]

Will you all please stop using the acronym WMD. Its meaningless.
Biological weapons, yep I know what that means
Chemical weapons, check
Nuclear weapons, ok yes

WMD, Weapons of mass destruction .......WTF

Biological weapons cause NO destuction. Yes they may kill many people but destruction? I mean how are you people defining destruction?
If your going to argue about semantics (which is what you all seem to be doing at the moment) then how about the defining your terms first. If your going to use soft useless phrases like 'weapons of mass destructions' try giving it some meaning first.

oh and ps commie-lib IS the most retarded thing I've ever heard someone use in a political argument

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This dumb thread still has life?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

How about it heartsurgeon? I called you on your vile lies about my position. I reposted what I really said above, for all to see -- in context. You've evaded addressing it so far. What's the problem? Here's your chance to show a little integrity. Will you support Bush by addressing my points, or will you continue to bleat your disinformation and diversions?

Heartsurgeon has been asked to address this but refuses to do so. Why?

I've also asked CAD (who is adamant about taking things in context) to kindly explain the importance of context to heartsurgeon, but he also refuses to do so. Why?

Three words come to mind when thinking of these two...hypocrates, cowards, and pathetic.

:roll:

I must have missed where you asked me to explain something to HS. Seriously - I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about.

Now to your BS name calling. You can have your opinion but you haven't a clue about me if you think that. But since we are name calling I think both you and Bowfinger are hypocrites, cowards, and pathetic when it comes to what you post here. The fact that Bowfinger "claims" to be an independent is laughably pathetic and likewise your repeated quoting of other people's questions to members is equally as pathetic. Do you get off on trying to act superior? We all know you are not superior so why do you even pretend? I know I'm not superior, but I do know where I stand on issues and am willing to post them(unlike some people who like to ask others instead of posting their own).

Now back to this important and serious issue of WMDs in Iraq.

CkG

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: conjur
That's a big ASSumption.

I mean, come on, CkG! Bush and Rumsfeld knew Saddam had stockpiles and Rumsfeld even knew where they were.


Well....we're waiting!

He was wrong? You even been wrong? You know I have! Whole world had bad intel on this cause Saddam knew he didn't even really need the WMD's as long as someone thought he had them the effect was the same. Terror.

Hey! Another customer for the GOP Spinning Wheel of [Mis]Fortune!

Which is it? Did they have them or didn't they? A whole shell was found and here's "proof" he had them! Oh wait, Rumsfeld was wrong, Saddam *didn't* have them. Oh, but we have this WMD that was found. But, wait....

<dizzy>

Prove the unaccounted for WMDs were destroyed or disposed of. Until then, you have no argument about the WMDs.

Prove to ME that you have no WMD's yourself, you might have hidden them in China, prove you didn't.

How hard is it to prove a negative? Impossible, anyone in their right mind should know that.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
There was never any doubt that Sadam had possesed WMDs, just that he didn't have mass quantities of them when we invaded his country.

Yes, I know that excuse has already been raised here. And like I said - it is still a serious issue. If there is 1 then there are most likely more. 1 or 1000 of these shells is serious. Ofcourse the argument now goes from "No WMDs found" to "not enough WMDs found"

CkG

That's a big ASSumption.

No, it is not a "big ASSumption". It is logic. Saddam had tried to hide things from inspectors for years. Saddam had chemical weapons, he used them, and to say this is the ONLY one left or some "stray" shell would be a BIG ASSumption. Like I said - if there is one there are most likely more.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Dear CAD.....

save you breath..

the Dems/Libs are hysterical. Nothing will mollify them. Mention "Bush" and they start frothing and twitching....heck, the best thing they can come up with now is getting McCain to be Kerry's (a highly decorated Vietnam Veteran) Veep!! Pathetic!

Just remember:

they don't care what we find.."no amount will satisfy me..

Yes, I know they are hysterical and that nothing will get through to them. I however, being the eternal optomist I am, have faith in people to one day turn away from the hate that clouds their judgement.

Yes, the whole McCain story is laughable. They seem to think they need a vietnam hero to bolster their highly decorated Vietnam Veteran candidate. Don't they know what "NO" means?

Yes, I already know they will never be satisfied. Give them the inch they demand and they want a foot. Give them a foot and they want a mile. pathetic.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: conjur
That's a big ASSumption.

I mean, come on, CkG! Bush and Rumsfeld knew Saddam had stockpiles and Rumsfeld even knew where they were.


Well....we're waiting!

He was wrong? You even been wrong? You know I have! Whole world had bad intel on this cause Saddam knew he didn't even really need the WMD's as long as someone thought he had them the effect was the same. Terror.

Hey! Another customer for the GOP Spinning Wheel of [Mis]Fortune!

Which is it? Did they have them or didn't they? A whole shell was found and here's "proof" he had them! Oh wait, Rumsfeld was wrong, Saddam *didn't* have them. Oh, but we have this WMD that was found. But, wait....

<dizzy>

Prove the unaccounted for WMDs were destroyed or disposed of. Until then, you have no argument about the WMDs.

Prove to ME that you have no WMD's yourself, you might have hidden them in China, prove you didn't.

How hard is it to prove a negative? Impossible, anyone in their right mind should know that.

Did he(SmokeRngs) ever admit to the fact he had them? Has he ever used them? Has he ever signed agreements that he would give account for all his weapons and destroy them? Exactly...

CkG

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

How about it heartsurgeon? I called you on your vile lies about my position. I reposted what I really said above, for all to see -- in context. You've evaded addressing it so far. What's the problem? Here's your chance to show a little integrity. Will you support Bush by addressing my points, or will you continue to bleat your disinformation and diversions?

Heartsurgeon has been asked to address this but refuses to do so. Why?

I've also asked CAD (who is adamant about taking things in context) to kindly explain the importance of context to heartsurgeon, but he also refuses to do so. Why?

Three words come to mind when thinking of these two...hypocrates, cowards, and pathetic.

:roll:

I must have missed where you asked me to explain something to HS. Seriously - I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about.

Now to your BS name calling. You can have your opinion but you haven't a clue about me if you think that. But since we are name calling I think both you and Bowfinger are hypocrites, cowards, and pathetic when it comes to what you post here. The fact that Bowfinger "claims" to be an independent is laughably pathetic and likewise your repeated quoting of other people's questions to members is equally as pathetic. Do you get off on trying to act superior? We all know you are not superior so why do you even pretend? I know I'm not superior, but I do know where I stand on issues and am willing to post them(unlike some people who like to ask others instead of posting their own).

Now back to this important and serious issue of WMDs in Iraq.

CkG

So WMD's are the important issue this week, you really should have a stickied thread on the front page letting us know the reason for the invasion from week to week.

Like this "as wmd claims proved false, this week it is about liberation" or "now we found traces of something that might be sarin so this week the invasion is about wmd's".

Just an idea, i am sure the mods will allow it.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: conjur
That's a big ASSumption.

I mean, come on, CkG! Bush and Rumsfeld knew Saddam had stockpiles and Rumsfeld even knew where they were.


Well....we're waiting!

He was wrong? You even been wrong? You know I have! Whole world had bad intel on this cause Saddam knew he didn't even really need the WMD's as long as someone thought he had them the effect was the same. Terror.

Hey! Another customer for the GOP Spinning Wheel of [Mis]Fortune!

Which is it? Did they have them or didn't they? A whole shell was found and here's "proof" he had them! Oh wait, Rumsfeld was wrong, Saddam *didn't* have them. Oh, but we have this WMD that was found. But, wait....

<dizzy>

Prove the unaccounted for WMDs were destroyed or disposed of. Until then, you have no argument about the WMDs.

Prove to ME that you have no WMD's yourself, you might have hidden them in China, prove you didn't.

How hard is it to prove a negative? Impossible, anyone in their right mind should know that.

Did he(SmokeRngs) ever admit to the fact he had them? Has he ever used them? Has he ever signed agreements that he would give account for all his weapons and destroy them? Exactly...

CkG

You didn't get it, not surprising.

He cannot prove he has none, neither can Iraq, it is impossible to prove how you don't have something.

I owned a hunting rifle, but now i have none, i really don't, how can i prove that to you? If you are about to attack me, do i even WANT you to be sure?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: conjur
That's a big ASSumption.

I mean, come on, CkG! Bush and Rumsfeld knew Saddam had stockpiles and Rumsfeld even knew where they were.


Well....we're waiting!

He was wrong? You even been wrong? You know I have! Whole world had bad intel on this cause Saddam knew he didn't even really need the WMD's as long as someone thought he had them the effect was the same. Terror.

Hey! Another customer for the GOP Spinning Wheel of [Mis]Fortune!

Which is it? Did they have them or didn't they? A whole shell was found and here's "proof" he had them! Oh wait, Rumsfeld was wrong, Saddam *didn't* have them. Oh, but we have this WMD that was found. But, wait....

<dizzy>

Prove the unaccounted for WMDs were destroyed or disposed of. Until then, you have no argument about the WMDs.

Prove to ME that you have no WMD's yourself, you might have hidden them in China, prove you didn't.

How hard is it to prove a negative? Impossible, anyone in their right mind should know that.

Did he(SmokeRngs) ever admit to the fact he had them? Has he ever used them? Has he ever signed agreements that he would give account for all his weapons and destroy them? Exactly...

CkG

You didn't get it, not surprising.

He cannot prove he has none, neither can Iraq, it is impossible to prove how you don't have something.

I owned a hunting rifle, but now i have none, i really don't, how can i prove that to you? If you are about to attack me, do i even WANT you to be sure?

Hehe - no it's YOU who didn't "get it" - which I expected. Do you have a clue about what I may have been talking about or are are you truly that ignorant about what Saddam agreed to?

keep trying though klixxer. I once knew a Berliner who thought he was "all that" too ...I wonder if he ever started the Dirk Schipper circus or not... I have to find him one of these days.

CkG

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: josphII
conjour,

so you're telling me that the un weapons inspectors were allowed to do their job?

talk about revisionist history

Ayup...they sure were.

From Hans Blix's Jan. 27, 2003 report to the U.N.:

Cooperation on process

It has regard to the procedures, mechanisms, infrastructure and practical arrangements to pursue inspections and seek verifiable disarmament. While inspection is not built on the premise of confidence but may lead to confidence if it is successful, there must nevertheless be a measure of mutual confidence from the very beginning in running the operation of inspection.

Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable.

Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences. Inspections have also taken place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas day and New Years day. These inspections have been conducted in the same manner as all other inspections. We seek to be both effective and correct.