Weapons of Mass destruction found.

[Jhhnn]

The whole uber-right approach to this entire Iraqi invasion fiasco is probably one of the best examples of willful denial in modern history, and based on a logical fallacy. You can't prove a negative. other examples of the same kind of reasoning-

Prove there is no God.

Prove that there aren't any faeries in Ireland.

Prove that Sasquatch doesn't roam the Northwest.

Prove that Aliens didn't crashland in Roswell, Circa 1949...

The whole thing defies common sense and reason- accusations must be proven, rather than disproven- that burden lies with the accuser... in this case, the US govt. This one stray artillery round in no way proves any sort of deception on the part of the former Iraqi regime, despite the obvious joy of its discovery in some circles.

While it illustrates a certain blind partisanship on the part of Bush's defenders, it illustrates a more profound and dangerous flaw on the part of GWB and his policymakers- They ruthlessly and cynically exploited America's desire to trust our leaders, to pull together in common cause. We wanted to believe him, and he violated the trust of the American People by manipulating the available information, public opinion and congress to do his ill advised bidding. Failure to be deeply offended by this shows an extreme lack of character, of common sense, compassion or any other positive attribute, let alone something as abstract as integrity.

The whole thing is indescribably vile, as are the purely partisan attempts to defend it.

 

[SmokeRngs]

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.

Actually, I don't have to prove it. As has already been mentioned, I have never claimed to have WMDs, I have never used them, I have never tried to make them, I never had scientists working on them, I have never had a UN inspection team come into my house and find them. I have never even threatened the use of them.

Your argument has no merit. The above statements cannot be answered in the negative when talking about Saddam.

 

[leeboy]

^^^ Damn Jhhnn! So well put, nothing further needs to be said. Some will just never see the light. Even if they were awoken at 5am by GWB taking a dump on their face, they would still follow him off a cliff. Sad indeed.

Any of you Bush Fanboys after reading Jhhnn's post still want to focus on the cause celebre for the week, WMD, feel free. You will just be making bigger asses of yourselves.

 

[SmokeRngs]

Originally posted by: 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?

Actually, I would hope you would assume they still exist. The other option would be that they disappeared into thin air.

Also, your example does not coincide with what is being talked about.

It would work better if you had said you bought 12 sausages and everyone saw you, you publicly gave 2 sausages to someone, then publicly gave 2 more sausages to someone else and locked away the other 8 sausages. Later, the UN came in and took 4 of the sausages and then you kicked them out when there were 4 sausages left. Later on, the UN came back in and couldn't find those last 4 sausages that were there before and you won't tell them what was done with them or proof that anything was done with them. What does that tell you? There are 4 sausages left even though the UN can't find them.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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

It is ok CkG, you can be as condescending as you like.

However, you did not get it, and you never will, because getting it would confuse your agenda with reality.

I have a clue what Saddam agreed to, so did the inspectors, they said he was complying, they are the ones who knew if he was, the US labeled the inspections "worthless" as they found no WMD's and the US was in a hurry to attack to eliminate this immediate threat.

Well, the US was wrong, and after all this time, you still don't get that. That means one of two things, either you are to stupid to get it or you just choose to look the other way. You tell me, or rather, you never tell anyone anything so, let's just forget it, shall we?

 

[SmokeRngs]

Originally posted by: 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.

The leap of faith is you believing that Saddam destroyed the weapons even though he has no proof he destroyed everything or that they just happened to disappear into nothingness.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs

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.

Actually, I don't have to prove it. As has already been mentioned, I have never claimed to have WMDs, I have never used them, I have never tried to make them, I never had scientists working on them, I have never had a UN inspection team come into my house and find them. I have never even threatened the use of them.

Your argument has no merit. The above statements cannot be answered in the negative when talking about Saddam.

You people must have failed every class you have ever taken that had anything to do with logic, right?

Explain to me how you prove that you don't have something?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs
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.

The leap of faith is you believing that Saddam destroyed the weapons even though he has no proof he destroyed everything or that they just happened to disappear into nothingness.

The inspectors, during the 90s, were part of the dismantling of the WMD programs.

The inspectors back in Iraq in 2003 did not find anything but did find proof of some destruction of items such as Anthrax.

Now, Saddam is an evil dictator and certainly needed to be removed from power (but certainly not in the way it was done.) Perhaps he was tired of having to abide by feckless resolutions and didn't care to provide all of the truth.

All we know now is that it appears everything (oh wait...ONE shell was leftover) really was destroyed.

 

[SmokeRngs]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The whole uber-right approach to this entire Iraqi invasion fiasco is probably one of the best examples of willful denial in modern history, and based on a logical fallacy. You can't prove a negative. other examples of the same kind of reasoning-

Prove there is no God.

Prove that there aren't any faeries in Ireland.

Prove that Sasquatch doesn't roam the Northwest.

Prove that Aliens didn't crashland in Roswell, Circa 1949...

The whole thing defies common sense and reason- accusations must be proven, rather than disproven- that burden lies with the accuser... in this case, the US govt. This one stray artillery round in no way proves any sort of deception on the part of the former Iraqi regime, despite the obvious joy of its discovery in some circles.

While it illustrates a certain blind partisanship on the part of Bush's defenders, it illustrates a more profound and dangerous flaw on the part of GWB and his policymakers- They ruthlessly and cynically exploited America's desire to trust our leaders, to pull together in common cause. We wanted to believe him, and he violated the trust of the American People by manipulating the available information, public opinion and congress to do his ill advised bidding. Failure to be deeply offended by this shows an extreme lack of character, of common sense, compassion or any other positive attribute, let alone something as abstract as integrity.

The whole thing is indescribably vile, as are the purely partisan attempts to defend it.

So, previously God was known by the UN to exist?

Faeries were previously proven to exist in Ireland by the UN using inspections and seen by UN inspectors before the fairies kicked them out?

The UN had proved that sasquatch did previously exist but just can't find him now?

The UN was at Roswell and spoke to the aliens and documented their existance but since they can't parade the aliens around right now they say they no longer exist?

What defies common sense and reason are your examples. They have no bearing whatsoever on what is being discussed. Again, you miss the point, the WMDs were there. You can't deny that. All you can say is that they magically disappeared since you can no longer see them with your own eyes.

I guess the remote to the TV that you used yesterday, but cannot find now no longer exists since you can't see it. That is a down to earth example you and many others should be able to understand.

 

[SmokeRngs]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs
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.

The leap of faith is you believing that Saddam destroyed the weapons even though he has no proof he destroyed everything or that they just happened to disappear into nothingness.

The inspectors, during the 90s, were part of the dismantling of the WMD programs.

The inspectors back in Iraq in 2003 did not find anything but did find proof of some destruction of items such as Anthrax.

Now, Saddam is an evil dictator and certainly needed to be removed from power (but certainly not in the way it was done.) Perhaps he was tired of having to abide by feckless resolutions and didn't care to provide all of the truth.

All we know now is that it appears everything (oh wait...ONE shell was leftover) really was destroyed.

No, it doesn't appear everything was destroyed. There is no documentation of any kind that it was destroyed. I have yet to see any witnesses, credible or otherwise that witnessed the destruction. There are many ways to prove something was destroyed. It would also be the epitomy of stupidity to kick out the people that are doing the destruction just so you can destroy it secretly so no one knows you did it. That was the reason those people were there, to document the destruction so you were no longer in trouble about it.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: 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, it seems to hard for you to grasp more than one concept at a time. The invasion of Iraq could be about the WMD and it could also be about the liberation of the people of Iraq. I know it's hard for some of you folks to think of more than one thing at a time but if you work at it you might be able to. I believe there were many more reasons. The social political dynamics of the entire middle east precluded Saddam's Arab brothers from removing him from power. But calculate the damage that was being done to the region by having to keep Iraq isolated. Calculate the damage done by Iraq's support of Palestinian terrorists. Add in all the other reasons why having a brutal dictator in charge of Iraq. Add in the fact that when Saddam died it was very likely that his son, who seemed worse that Saddam himself, would be in charge and you come up with the conclusion that Saddam needed to go.

Now it won't be a quick and easy path to the desirable conclusion and there are many reasons for that also, but if the Iraqis truely desire peace and a stable society than it will get there. It will, if certain people let it.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: etech
Klixxer, it seems to hard for you to grasp more than one concept at a time. The invasion of Iraq could be about the WMD and it could also be about the liberation of the people of Iraq. I know it's hard for some of you folks to think of more than one thing at a time but if you work at it you might be able to. I believe there were many more reasons. The social political dynamics of the entire middle east precluded Saddam's Arab brothers from removing him from power. But calculate the damage that was being done to the region by having to keep Iraq isolated. Calculate the damage done by Iraq's support of Palestinian terrorists. Add in all the other reasons why having a brutal dictator in charge of Iraq. Add in the fact that when Saddam died it was very likely that his son, who seemed worse that Saddam himself, would be in charge and you come up with the conclusion that Saddam needed to go.

Now it won't be a quick and easy path to the desirable conclusion and there are many reasons for that also, but if the Iraqis truely desire peace and a stable society than it will get there. It will, if certain people let it.

LOL!! Wow...obfuscation to the fullest.

I never realized the U.N. Resolutions that Saddam had violated mentioned liberating the Iraqi people.

Hmmmm....guess you learn something new every day.


:roll: :roll:

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The whole uber-right approach to this entire Iraqi invasion fiasco is probably one of the best examples of willful denial in modern history, and based on a logical fallacy. You can't prove a negative. other examples of the same kind of reasoning-

Prove there is no God.

Prove that there aren't any faeries in Ireland.

Prove that Sasquatch doesn't roam the Northwest.

Prove that Aliens didn't crashland in Roswell, Circa 1949...

The whole thing defies common sense and reason- accusations must be proven, rather than disproven- that burden lies with the accuser... in this case, the US govt. This one stray artillery round in no way proves any sort of deception on the part of the former Iraqi regime, despite the obvious joy of its discovery in some circles.

While it illustrates a certain blind partisanship on the part of Bush's defenders, it illustrates a more profound and dangerous flaw on the part of GWB and his policymakers- They ruthlessly and cynically exploited America's desire to trust our leaders, to pull together in common cause. We wanted to believe him, and he violated the trust of the American People by manipulating the available information, public opinion and congress to do his ill advised bidding. Failure to be deeply offended by this shows an extreme lack of character, of common sense, compassion or any other positive attribute, let alone something as abstract as integrity.

The whole thing is indescribably vile, as are the purely partisan attempts to defend it.

Well-said, sir! Hats off to you. I greatly respect that you are able to keep a civil tongue while explaining the painfully obvious to the willfully blind.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: 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, it seems to hard for you to grasp more than one concept at a time. The invasion of Iraq could be about the WMD and it could also be about the liberation of the people of Iraq. I know it's hard for some of you folks to think of more than one thing at a time but if you work at it you might be able to. I believe there were many more reasons. The social political dynamics of the entire middle east precluded Saddam's Arab brothers from removing him from power. But calculate the damage that was being done to the region by having to keep Iraq isolated. Calculate the damage done by Iraq's support of Palestinian terrorists. Add in all the other reasons why having a brutal dictator in charge of Iraq. Add in the fact that when Saddam died it was very likely that his son, who seemed worse that Saddam himself, would be in charge and you come up with the conclusion that Saddam needed to go.

Now it won't be a quick and easy path to the desirable conclusion and there are many reasons for that also, but if the Iraqis truely desire peace and a stable society than it will get there. It will, if certain people let it.

Iraqs support to palestinian terrorists? Oh, you mean that they gave support to EVERY family who lost a member in the conflict? Like SA is still doing? Ok.

That it was a dictatorship with a cruel ruler, just like SA? Ok, guess we know who is next then, don't we?

May i ask you one question though?

There was never any talk about this before the invasion, just the stockpiles of WMD's and the connections to Al Quaida, now that both of those things have been proven false, it is about liberation. The excuses are piling up and the original reasons have been left.

This was what was presented to the UN by Powell and to the Congress, nothing else, remember that.

Now add in the FACT that the US attacked a soveriegn nation based on LIES, you cannot very well dispute that without lying yourself.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: etech
Klixxer, it seems to hard for you to grasp more than one concept at a time. The invasion of Iraq could be about the WMD and it could also be about the liberation of the people of Iraq. I know it's hard for some of you folks to think of more than one thing at a time but if you work at it you might be able to. I believe there were many more reasons. The social political dynamics of the entire middle east precluded Saddam's Arab brothers from removing him from power. But calculate the damage that was being done to the region by having to keep Iraq isolated. Calculate the damage done by Iraq's support of Palestinian terrorists. Add in all the other reasons why having a brutal dictator in charge of Iraq. Add in the fact that when Saddam died it was very likely that his son, who seemed worse that Saddam himself, would be in charge and you come up with the conclusion that Saddam needed to go.

Now it won't be a quick and easy path to the desirable conclusion and there are many reasons for that also, but if the Iraqis truely desire peace and a stable society than it will get there. It will, if certain people let it.

LOL!! Wow...obfuscation to the fullest.

I never realized the U.N. Resolutions that Saddam had violated mentioned liberating the Iraqi people.

Hmmmm....guess you learn something new every day.


:roll: :roll:

Conjur, you realize that the UN resolutions mentioned more that just WMD don't you. If you didn't than you did learn something new today. Do I need to itemize them for you or can you do basic research on the web?

BTW, Are you still welching on that bet?

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: 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, it seems to hard for you to grasp more than one concept at a time. The invasion of Iraq could be about the WMD and it could also be about the liberation of the people of Iraq. I know it's hard for some of you folks to think of more than one thing at a time but if you work at it you might be able to. I believe there were many more reasons. The social political dynamics of the entire middle east precluded Saddam's Arab brothers from removing him from power. But calculate the damage that was being done to the region by having to keep Iraq isolated. Calculate the damage done by Iraq's support of Palestinian terrorists. Add in all the other reasons why having a brutal dictator in charge of Iraq. Add in the fact that when Saddam died it was very likely that his son, who seemed worse that Saddam himself, would be in charge and you come up with the conclusion that Saddam needed to go.

Now it won't be a quick and easy path to the desirable conclusion and there are many reasons for that also, but if the Iraqis truely desire peace and a stable society than it will get there. It will, if certain people let it.

Iraqs support to palestinian terrorists? Oh, you mean that they gave support to EVERY family who lost a member in the conflict? Like SA is still doing? Ok.

That it was a dictatorship with a cruel ruler, just like SA? Ok, guess we know who is next then, don't we?

May i ask you one question though?

There was never any talk about this before the invasion, just the stockpiles of WMD's and the connections to Al Quaida, now that both of those things have been proven false, it is about liberation. The excuses are piling up and the original reasons have been left.

This was what was presented to the UN by Powell and to the Congress, nothing else, remember that.

Now add in the FACT that the US attacked a soveriegn nation based on LIES, you cannot very well dispute that without lying yourself.

Klixxer, why did Saddam pay the families of suicide bombers more than the families of people that were killed in the conflict?

We'll take you so-called points one by one. Come up with a good answer to that and we'll move on to the next.

edit.
To answer your question those other points were addressed, you weren't listening.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs

Originally posted by: conjur
The inspectors, during the 90s, were part of the dismantling of the WMD programs.

The inspectors back in Iraq in 2003 did not find anything but did find proof of some destruction of items such as Anthrax.

Now, Saddam is an evil dictator and certainly needed to be removed from power (but certainly not in the way it was done.) Perhaps he was tired of having to abide by feckless resolutions and didn't care to provide all of the truth.

All we know now is that it appears everything (oh wait...ONE shell was leftover) really was destroyed.

No, it doesn't appear everything was destroyed. There is no documentation of any kind that it was destroyed. I have yet to see any witnesses, credible or otherwise that witnessed the destruction. There are many ways to prove something was destroyed. It would also be the epitomy of stupidity to kick out the people that are doing the destruction just so you can destroy it secretly so no one knows you did it. That was the reason those people were there, to document the destruction so you were no longer in trouble about it.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

THE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003:

AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION


Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix

The implementation of resolution 687 (1991) nevertheless brought about considerable disarmament results. It has been recognized that more weapons of mass destruction were destroyed under this resolution than were destroyed during the Gulf War: large quantities of chemical weapons were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision before 1994. While Iraq claims ? with little evidence ? that it destroyed all biological weapons unilaterally in 1991, it is certain that UNSCOM destroyed large biological weapons production facilities in 1996. The large nuclear infrastructure was destroyed and the fissionable material was removed from Iraq by the IAEA

You were saying???



As to unaccounted for weapons:

I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.

Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.

might...not does.

Chemical weapons

The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.

Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.

There are also indications that the agent was weaponised. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.

I would now like to turn to the so-called ?Air Force document? that I have discussed with the Council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.

The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.

The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.

The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.

The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate. During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and had set up a committee of investigation. Since then it has reported that it has found a further 4 chemical rockets at a storage depot in Al Taji.

I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.

Whilst I am addressing chemical issues, I should mention a matter, which I reported on 19 December 2002, concerning equipment at a civilian chemical plant at Al Fallujah. Iraq has declared that it had repaired chemical processing equipment previously destroyed under UNSCOM supervision, and had installed it at Fallujah for the production of chlorine and phenols. We have inspected this equipment and are conducting a detailed technical evaluation of it. On completion, we will decide whether this and other equipment that has been recovered by Iraq should be destroyed.

So...even Blix doesn't state the weapons do exist, just that they are "unaccounted for." They may have been destroyed and just not fully documented, a wholly possible explanation.

Also, other discoveries were under investigation but those investigations were halted when Bush requested the inspectors to leave Iraq so he could invade it. Bush didn't want to give them anymore time to find out that there was nothing there and, hence, shoot a hole in his plan to implement the PNAC vision.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: etech
Klixxer, it seems to hard for you to grasp more than one concept at a time. The invasion of Iraq could be about the WMD and it could also be about the liberation of the people of Iraq. I know it's hard for some of you folks to think of more than one thing at a time but if you work at it you might be able to. I believe there were many more reasons. The social political dynamics of the entire middle east precluded Saddam's Arab brothers from removing him from power. But calculate the damage that was being done to the region by having to keep Iraq isolated. Calculate the damage done by Iraq's support of Palestinian terrorists. Add in all the other reasons why having a brutal dictator in charge of Iraq. Add in the fact that when Saddam died it was very likely that his son, who seemed worse that Saddam himself, would be in charge and you come up with the conclusion that Saddam needed to go.

Now it won't be a quick and easy path to the desirable conclusion and there are many reasons for that also, but if the Iraqis truely desire peace and a stable society than it will get there. It will, if certain people let it.

LOL!! Wow...obfuscation to the fullest.

I never realized the U.N. Resolutions that Saddam had violated mentioned liberating the Iraqi people.

Hmmmm....guess you learn something new every day.


:roll: :roll:

Conjur, you realize that the UN resolutions mentioned more that just WMD don't you. If you didn't than you did learn something new today. Do I need to itemize them for you or can you do basic research on the web?

BTW, Are you still welching on that bet?

Nope...I'm still waiting on the proof that proves my supposition wrong. Although, that evidence won't be available for a while so I'll give you time to keep researching.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: etech
Klixxer, it seems to hard for you to grasp more than one concept at a time. The invasion of Iraq could be about the WMD and it could also be about the liberation of the people of Iraq. I know it's hard for some of you folks to think of more than one thing at a time but if you work at it you might be able to. I believe there were many more reasons. The social political dynamics of the entire middle east precluded Saddam's Arab brothers from removing him from power. But calculate the damage that was being done to the region by having to keep Iraq isolated. Calculate the damage done by Iraq's support of Palestinian terrorists. Add in all the other reasons why having a brutal dictator in charge of Iraq. Add in the fact that when Saddam died it was very likely that his son, who seemed worse that Saddam himself, would be in charge and you come up with the conclusion that Saddam needed to go.

Now it won't be a quick and easy path to the desirable conclusion and there are many reasons for that also, but if the Iraqis truely desire peace and a stable society than it will get there. It will, if certain people let it.

LOL!! Wow...obfuscation to the fullest.

I never realized the U.N. Resolutions that Saddam had violated mentioned liberating the Iraqi people.

Hmmmm....guess you learn something new every day.


:roll: :roll:

Conjur, you realize that the UN resolutions mentioned more that just WMD don't you. If you didn't than you did learn something new today. Do I need to itemize them for you or can you do basic research on the web?

BTW, Are you still welching on that bet?

Nope...I'm still waiting on the proof that proves my supposition wrong. Although, that evidence won't be available for a while so I'll give you time to keep researching.

Your memory is faulty, It is up to you, the originator of the contention that the weapon is from outside of Iraq to prove it.

You didn't answer, can you do research on the web and find the other items Iraq was in violation of?

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: 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, it seems to hard for you to grasp more than one concept at a time. The invasion of Iraq could be about the WMD and it could also be about the liberation of the people of Iraq. I know it's hard for some of you folks to think of more than one thing at a time but if you work at it you might be able to. I believe there were many more reasons. The social political dynamics of the entire middle east precluded Saddam's Arab brothers from removing him from power. But calculate the damage that was being done to the region by having to keep Iraq isolated. Calculate the damage done by Iraq's support of Palestinian terrorists. Add in all the other reasons why having a brutal dictator in charge of Iraq. Add in the fact that when Saddam died it was very likely that his son, who seemed worse that Saddam himself, would be in charge and you come up with the conclusion that Saddam needed to go.

Now it won't be a quick and easy path to the desirable conclusion and there are many reasons for that also, but if the Iraqis truely desire peace and a stable society than it will get there. It will, if certain people let it.

Iraqs support to palestinian terrorists? Oh, you mean that they gave support to EVERY family who lost a member in the conflict? Like SA is still doing? Ok.

That it was a dictatorship with a cruel ruler, just like SA? Ok, guess we know who is next then, don't we?

May i ask you one question though?

There was never any talk about this before the invasion, just the stockpiles of WMD's and the connections to Al Quaida, now that both of those things have been proven false, it is about liberation. The excuses are piling up and the original reasons have been left.

This was what was presented to the UN by Powell and to the Congress, nothing else, remember that.

Now add in the FACT that the US attacked a soveriegn nation based on LIES, you cannot very well dispute that without lying yourself.

Klixxer, why did Saddam pay the families of suicide bombers more than the families of people that were killed in the conflict?

We'll take you so-called points one by one. Come up with a good answer to that and we'll move on to the next.

edit.
To answer your question those other points were addressed, you weren't listening.

Ok, i will answer your post, i had no idea that Saddam paid the families of the suicide bombers more, got any valid links to that information where it is confirmed? (no, not americanrightwingfundiesdontlie.com)

And then i read your edit, it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you people, why don't you explain to me why the president of the US lied to go to war, why the UN was lied to, the congress was lied to and the people of the US was lied to? Keep it simple, was it because the UN, the congress and the american people are to stupid to grasp the concept or was it just because ... ?

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: 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, it seems to hard for you to grasp more than one concept at a time. The invasion of Iraq could be about the WMD and it could also be about the liberation of the people of Iraq. I know it's hard for some of you folks to think of more than one thing at a time but if you work at it you might be able to. I believe there were many more reasons. The social political dynamics of the entire middle east precluded Saddam's Arab brothers from removing him from power. But calculate the damage that was being done to the region by having to keep Iraq isolated. Calculate the damage done by Iraq's support of Palestinian terrorists. Add in all the other reasons why having a brutal dictator in charge of Iraq. Add in the fact that when Saddam died it was very likely that his son, who seemed worse that Saddam himself, would be in charge and you come up with the conclusion that Saddam needed to go.

Now it won't be a quick and easy path to the desirable conclusion and there are many reasons for that also, but if the Iraqis truely desire peace and a stable society than it will get there. It will, if certain people let it.

Iraqs support to palestinian terrorists? Oh, you mean that they gave support to EVERY family who lost a member in the conflict? Like SA is still doing? Ok.

That it was a dictatorship with a cruel ruler, just like SA? Ok, guess we know who is next then, don't we?

May i ask you one question though?

There was never any talk about this before the invasion, just the stockpiles of WMD's and the connections to Al Quaida, now that both of those things have been proven false, it is about liberation. The excuses are piling up and the original reasons have been left.

This was what was presented to the UN by Powell and to the Congress, nothing else, remember that.

Now add in the FACT that the US attacked a soveriegn nation based on LIES, you cannot very well dispute that without lying yourself.

Klixxer, why did Saddam pay the families of suicide bombers more than the families of people that were killed in the conflict?

We'll take you so-called points one by one. Come up with a good answer to that and we'll move on to the next.

edit.
To answer your question those other points were addressed, you weren't listening.

Ok, i will answer your post, i had no idea that Saddam paid the families of the suicide bombers more, got any valid links to that information where it is confirmed? (no, not americanrightwingfundiesdontlie.com)

And then i read your edit, it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you people, why don't you explain to me why the president of the US lied to go to war, why the UN was lied to, the congress was lied to and the people of the US was lied to? Keep it simple, was it because the UN, the congress and the american people are to stupid to grasp the concept or was it just because ... ?

Will the BBC do? Your attempted insult will be ignored. I have learned to expect and as such, dismiss them, from "you people".


Palestinians get Saddam funds

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: etech
Your memory is faulty, It is up to you, the originator of the contention that the weapon is from outside of Iraq to prove it.

You didn't answer, can you do research on the web and find the other items Iraq was in violation of?

No, my bet was that the evidence WILL show the shell to be old or from outside Iraq. We don't know yet, do we? How can I prove it? Feel free to prove it came from Saddam's cache, though.


As for your other question, I don't have to. I have the text of the U.N. resolutions saved to disk...from last year. What you fail to understand, though, is the crux of the justification for going to war were the known-to-exist WMDs. Without WMDs, NO country would have approved of a plan to invade Iraq. Bush knew that. Powell knew that. Cheney knew that. Rumsfeld knew that. EVERYONE knew that.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: 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, it seems to hard for you to grasp more than one concept at a time. The invasion of Iraq could be about the WMD and it could also be about the liberation of the people of Iraq. I know it's hard for some of you folks to think of more than one thing at a time but if you work at it you might be able to. I believe there were many more reasons. The social political dynamics of the entire middle east precluded Saddam's Arab brothers from removing him from power. But calculate the damage that was being done to the region by having to keep Iraq isolated. Calculate the damage done by Iraq's support of Palestinian terrorists. Add in all the other reasons why having a brutal dictator in charge of Iraq. Add in the fact that when Saddam died it was very likely that his son, who seemed worse that Saddam himself, would be in charge and you come up with the conclusion that Saddam needed to go.

Now it won't be a quick and easy path to the desirable conclusion and there are many reasons for that also, but if the Iraqis truely desire peace and a stable society than it will get there. It will, if certain people let it.

Iraqs support to palestinian terrorists? Oh, you mean that they gave support to EVERY family who lost a member in the conflict? Like SA is still doing? Ok.

That it was a dictatorship with a cruel ruler, just like SA? Ok, guess we know who is next then, don't we?

May i ask you one question though?

There was never any talk about this before the invasion, just the stockpiles of WMD's and the connections to Al Quaida, now that both of those things have been proven false, it is about liberation. The excuses are piling up and the original reasons have been left.

This was what was presented to the UN by Powell and to the Congress, nothing else, remember that.

Now add in the FACT that the US attacked a soveriegn nation based on LIES, you cannot very well dispute that without lying yourself.

Klixxer, why did Saddam pay the families of suicide bombers more than the families of people that were killed in the conflict?

We'll take you so-called points one by one. Come up with a good answer to that and we'll move on to the next.

edit.
To answer your question those other points were addressed, you weren't listening.

Ok, i will answer your post, i had no idea that Saddam paid the families of the suicide bombers more, got any valid links to that information where it is confirmed? (no, not americanrightwingfundiesdontlie.com)

And then i read your edit, it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you people, why don't you explain to me why the president of the US lied to go to war, why the UN was lied to, the congress was lied to and the people of the US was lied to? Keep it simple, was it because the UN, the congress and the american people are to stupid to grasp the concept or was it just because ... ?

Will the BBC do? Your attempted insult will be ignored. I have learned to expect and as such, dismiss them, from "you people".


Palestinians get Saddam funds

From that article it does seem that one family of a suicide bomber was paid more than one family of a person killed by Israeli army, however, it does not state why, it does not state the size of the family and it does not state that it is always those sums, so basically, it is worthless.

I still want you to answer my last question, if you can, if you can't, just say so.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: 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, it seems to hard for you to grasp more than one concept at a time. The invasion of Iraq could be about the WMD and it could also be about the liberation of the people of Iraq. I know it's hard for some of you folks to think of more than one thing at a time but if you work at it you might be able to. I believe there were many more reasons. The social political dynamics of the entire middle east precluded Saddam's Arab brothers from removing him from power. But calculate the damage that was being done to the region by having to keep Iraq isolated. Calculate the damage done by Iraq's support of Palestinian terrorists. Add in all the other reasons why having a brutal dictator in charge of Iraq. Add in the fact that when Saddam died it was very likely that his son, who seemed worse that Saddam himself, would be in charge and you come up with the conclusion that Saddam needed to go.

Now it won't be a quick and easy path to the desirable conclusion and there are many reasons for that also, but if the Iraqis truely desire peace and a stable society than it will get there. It will, if certain people let it.

Iraqs support to palestinian terrorists? Oh, you mean that they gave support to EVERY family who lost a member in the conflict? Like SA is still doing? Ok.

That it was a dictatorship with a cruel ruler, just like SA? Ok, guess we know who is next then, don't we?

May i ask you one question though?

There was never any talk about this before the invasion, just the stockpiles of WMD's and the connections to Al Quaida, now that both of those things have been proven false, it is about liberation. The excuses are piling up and the original reasons have been left.

This was what was presented to the UN by Powell and to the Congress, nothing else, remember that.

Now add in the FACT that the US attacked a soveriegn nation based on LIES, you cannot very well dispute that without lying yourself.

Klixxer, why did Saddam pay the families of suicide bombers more than the families of people that were killed in the conflict?

We'll take you so-called points one by one. Come up with a good answer to that and we'll move on to the next.

edit.
To answer your question those other points were addressed, you weren't listening.

Ok, i will answer your post, i had no idea that Saddam paid the families of the suicide bombers more, got any valid links to that information where it is confirmed? (no, not americanrightwingfundiesdontlie.com)

And then i read your edit, it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you people, why don't you explain to me why the president of the US lied to go to war, why the UN was lied to, the congress was lied to and the people of the US was lied to? Keep it simple, was it because the UN, the congress and the american people are to stupid to grasp the concept or was it just because ... ?

Will the BBC do? Your attempted insult will be ignored. I have learned to expect and as such, dismiss them, from "you people".


Palestinians get Saddam funds

From that article it does seem that one family of a suicide bomber was paid more than one family of a person killed by Israeli army, however, it does not state why, it does not state the size of the family and it does not state that it is always those sums, so basically, it is worthless.

I still want you to answer my last question, if you can, if you can't, just say so.

Saddam stokes war with suicide bomber cash

The Iraqi leader's payments to the families of dead Palestinian terrorists means more trouble for Yasser Arafat, writes Paul McGeough in the West Bank.

The hall was packed and the intake of breath was audible as a special announcement was made to the war widows of the West Bank - Saddam Hussein would pay $US25,000 ($47,000) to the family of each suicide bomber as an enticement for others to volunteer for martyrdom in the name of the Palestinian people.

The men at the top table then opened Saddam's chequebook and, as the names of 47 martyrs were called, family representatives went up to sign for cheques written in US dollars.

Those of two suicide bombers were the first to be paid the new rate of $US25,000 and those whose relatives had died in other clashes with the Israeli military were given $US10,000 each.

The $US500,000 doled out in this impoverished community yesterday means that the besieged Iraqi leader now has contributed more than $US10 million to grieving Palestinian families since the new intifada began 18 months ago.

But the timing of this clear signal that Saddam is stoking the Middle East conflict with his new $US15,000 bonus to encourage more suicide bombers - and exclusive pictures from the distribution ceremony, which was attended by the Herald - could make it more difficult for the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, to manage his already strained relationship with the United States.
..."


Clear enough for you?


You cannot prove that Pres. Bush lied. He presented intelligence which was not only gathered by the preceding administration but by other countries as well. Your question is based on a unproven allegation.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: etech
Your memory is faulty, It is up to you, the originator of the contention that the weapon is from outside of Iraq to prove it.

You didn't answer, can you do research on the web and find the other items Iraq was in violation of?

No, my bet was that the evidence WILL show the shell to be old or from outside Iraq. We don't know yet, do we? How can I prove it? Feel free to prove it came from Saddam's cache, though.


As for your other question, I don't have to. I have the text of the U.N. resolutions saved to disk...from last year. What you fail to understand, though, is the crux of the justification for going to war were the known-to-exist WMDs. Without WMDs, NO country would have approved of a plan to invade Iraq. Bush knew that. Powell knew that. Cheney knew that. Rumsfeld knew that. EVERYONE knew that.

Conjur, do I need to go back and post your exact quote. You are changing the bet.

Yes, the WMD's the intelligence agency's indicated they had evidence of were the cornerstone of the argument. They were not the only arguement by any means. Everyone should know that.