Winning Argument Series: WMD

Where they are, not important.

Lots of people like to mother*** George Bush on this topic. Those that do assume a few things:

1: George Bush actually dons fatigues and waits in the bushes with binoculars
2: George Bush, personally, is responsible for a European team of weapons inspectors
3: George Bush george bush george bush

If George Bush was HALF the evil man that liberals stomp their feet about... don't you think we would have found weapons of mass destructions? . The admitted fact (Totally different than the "REAL" fact) is that no weapons caches have been found. This means that "this administration" isn't as evil as everyone says they were. If they wanted to find weapon caches, by golly we would have.

But any argument otherwise, the conversational result is the same "Goddam bush did it!". Well, please consider that every country in the UN got the same damn information. They aren't apologising to their populus. Their populous seems to "Get it". He HAD these weapons. He used them on troops, and he used them on his own people. And he didn't just do it when it was illegal (After the Kuwaiti invasion and resulting squelch attack program (Desert storm)) but even before that. We speak on this point as if before the Kuwaiti invasion the weapons he had were perfectly justified.

They weren't. Saddam was a despot and a tyrant. Coalition forces rid the world of a VERY dangerous regime and dangerous man. without or without WMD, which he obviously HAD ... just hid really well.

In conclusion, the argument had / had not WMD is a moot argument, and it's not moot by any factor outside of it's own folly. Were we to invade, say, Burundi and make these claims, then I would say that something is wrong. But Saddam Hussein HAD these weapons, displayed them, and then hid them. Where they are, not important. No WMD reported to be found - not at all important. Mustard gases and nerve agents were used on Coalition forces at several attacks through the occupation and were even COVERED by the media as attacks.

This isn't sinking in for only one reason: Democrats HATE George Bush, and don't want anything to be told or heard that doesn't support their hate.

So Iran with nukes soon to be and N. Korea and China both with them. Your advise would be?

Lots of people like to mother*** George Bush on this topic. Those that do assume a few things:

1: George Bush actually dons fatigues and waits in the bushes with binoculars
2: George Bush, personally, is responsible for a European team of weapons inspectors
3: George Bush george bush george bush

If George Bush was HALF the evil man that liberals stomp their feet about... don't you think we would have found weapons of mass destructions? . The admitted fact (Totally different than the "REAL" fact) is that no weapons caches have been found. This means that "this administration" isn't as evil as everyone says they were. If they wanted to find weapon caches, by golly we would have.

But any argument otherwise, the conversational result is the same "Goddam bush did it!". Well, please consider that every country in the UN got the same damn information. They aren't apologising to their populus. Their populous seems to "Get it". He HAD these weapons. He used them on troops, and he used them on his own people. And he didn't just do it when it was illegal (After the Kuwaiti invasion and resulting squelch attack program (Desert storm)) but even before that. We speak on this point as if before the Kuwaiti invasion the weapons he had were perfectly justified.

They weren't. Saddam was a despot and a tyrant. Coalition forces rid the world of a VERY dangerous regime and dangerous man. without or without WMD, which he obviously HAD ... just hid really well.

In conclusion, the argument had / had not WMD is a moot argument, and it's not moot by any factor outside of it's own folly. Were we to invade, say, Burundi and make these claims, then I would say that something is wrong. But Saddam Hussein HAD these weapons, displayed them, and then hid them. Where they are, not important. No WMD reported to be found - not at all important. Mustard gases and nerve agents were used on Coalition forces at several attacks through the occupation and were even COVERED by the media as attacks.

This isn't sinking in for only one reason: Democrats HATE George Bush, and don't want anything to be told or heard that doesn't support their hate.

Lots of people like to mother*** George Bush on this topic. Those that do assume a few things:

1: George Bush actually dons fatigues and waits in the bushes with binoculars
2: George Bush, personally, is responsible for a European team of weapons inspectors
3: George Bush george bush george bush

If George Bush was HALF the evil man that liberals stomp their feet about... don't you think we would have found weapons of mass destructions? . The admitted fact (Totally different than the "REAL" fact) is that no weapons caches have been found. This means that "this administration" isn't as evil as everyone says they were. If they wanted to find weapon caches, by golly we would have.

But any argument otherwise, the conversational result is the same "Goddam bush did it!". Well, please consider that every country in the UN got the same damn information. They aren't apologising to their populus. Their populous seems to "Get it". He HAD these weapons. He used them on troops, and he used them on his own people. And he didn't just do it when it was illegal (After the Kuwaiti invasion and resulting squelch attack program (Desert storm)) but even before that. We speak on this point as if before the Kuwaiti invasion the weapons he had were perfectly justified.

They weren't. Saddam was a despot and a tyrant. Coalition forces rid the world of a VERY dangerous regime and dangerous man. without or without WMD, which he obviously HAD ... just hid really well.

In conclusion, the argument had / had not WMD is a moot argument, and it's not moot by any factor outside of it's own folly. Were we to invade, say, Burundi and make these claims, then I would say that something is wrong. But Saddam Hussein HAD these weapons, displayed them, and then hid them. Where they are, not important. No WMD reported to be found - not at all important. Mustard gases and nerve agents were used on Coalition forces at several attacks through the occupation and were even COVERED by the media as attacks.

This isn't sinking in for only one reason: Democrats HATE George Bush, and don't want anything to be told or heard that doesn't support their hate.

Some people still believe this rubbish.

yes they didn't lie about the no WMB, it was a secret ploy, a lie, they told the truth IN a lie... it's actually very clever :beat:

Yeah....with Britain's help. Thanks, Scoob.

i was against the war from the start :thumbup: its the main reason Tony Bliar is no longer Prime Minister :thumbup:

So what? You still helped rob the poor Iraqis of their oil, you tyrant, you. No dice, Scoob. You'll always have blood and oil on your hands, too, Limey. Blair was your guy and he helped Bush INVADE AND EXPLOIT IRAQ. Ha. How does it feel to be one guilty MF at Nuremburg?:pimp:

So what? You still helped rob the poor Iraqis of their oil, you tyrant, you. No dice, Scoob. You'll always have blood and oil on your hands, too, Limey. Blair was your guy and he helped Bush INVADE AND EXPLOIT IRAQ. Ha. How does it feel to be one guilty MF at Nuremburg?:pimp: