Well Whaddaya Know?

Quote:

Page Not Found

Sorry - we are experiencing technical difficulties
While the service is unavailable, you can use your browser's "Print" feature, usually found under your browser's "File" menu, to print a web page.

?????

0 Replies

let's try again...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm

0 Replies

You know, at this point, who REALLY knows? The weapons may have been destroyed, or they have been exported to a nation friendly to Iraq, during that period of time from the beginning of the sabre rattling, and the invasion of Iraq.

I don't think that we will ever REALLY know!

0 Replies

i am satisfied about the truth of the matter.......

0 Replies

Well, some people can't be convinced.

0 Replies

UNITED NATIONS: IRAQ HAD NO WMD AFTER 1994

A report is going to be released by the United Nations today that will say that there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994. OK .... since we know beforehand that this is certainly going to be used by the pro-Saddam left against George Bush, let's look at the facts.

If Iraq had no WMD after 1994, then what were they hiding? Every time inspectors would come around, it was known from satellite photos that the Iraqis were moving cargo and vehicles whenever the inspectors would come around. Then, Saddam Hussein kicked out the inspectors in 1998. If he had no banned weapons, then what was he hiding? Why was he trying to keep the inspectors out of certain areas? Can't you just hear Saddam speaking to his inner circle? "If we allow these inspections to continue they're going to find out that we don't have any prohibited weapons, so we must stop the inspections immediately." Yeah ... that makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

If Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction after 1994, he simply could have thrown open the doors to every facility in Iraq and allowed the inspectors to complete their work, and eventually the sanctions would have been lifted. If Saddam had complied with the UN resolutions, he would still be in office. Whether or not Iraq had any weapons of mass destruction and when they had them means nothing at this point.

It is absolutely astounding that the United Nations, the liberals and their buddies in the media refuse to believe Iraqis are better off without the mass graves and rape rooms of Saddam Hussein.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

It is absolutely astounding that the United Nations, the liberals and their buddies in the media refuse to believe Iraqis are better off without the mass graves and rape rooms of Saddam Hussein.

Who is saying such? Could you please provide any quote for that.

0 Replies

It is equally astounding that McGentrix lumps people on the left side of the political spectrum with
Pro Saddamers...wait!!!! Actually, given McGentrixs' track record, not astounding at all.

McGentrix you are the standard by which the bush inc. target demographic is measured.

I'd love to watch you fetch a frisbee for him.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

It is equally astounding that McGentrix lumps people on the left side of the political spectrum with
Pro Saddamers...wait!!!! Actually, given McGentrixs' track record, not astounding at all.

McGentrix you are the standard by which the bush inc. target demographic is measured.

I'd love to watch you fetch a frisbee for him.

Let me get this straight... Because I offer a different opinion on a topic that disagrees with a point of view, I am now some sort of dog? Is that how it works?

If you take offense by my comments, that must mean there is some truth behind them. Maybe you saddam sympathizers should take your hatred of America elsewhere.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
It is equally astounding that McGentrix lumps people on the left side of the political spectrum with
Pro Saddamers...wait!!!! Actually, given McGentrixs' track record, not astounding at all.

McGentrix you are the standard by which the bush inc. target demographic is measured.

I'd love to watch you fetch a frisbee for him.

Let me get this straight... Because I offer a different opinion on a topic that disagrees with a point of view, I am now some sort of dog? Is that how it works?

If you take offense by my comments, that must mean there is some truth
ehind them. Maybe you saddam sympathizers should take your hatred of America elsewhere.

Let me get this straight McGentrix, because my opinion differs from you I am a saddam sympathizer? Is that how it works?

If you take offense from my comments that must mean there is some truth behind them. Maybe you neo con bush inc. sympathizers should take your hatred of America and your attempts to systematically erode it's basic tenets and go elsewhere.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

If you take offense by my comments, that must mean there is some truth behind them.

Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses!

0 Replies

Please, stop the pissing contests. The subject is WMD or no WMD. Let's keep A2K personalities out of this thread!

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
It is equally astounding that McGentrix lumps people on the left side of the political spectrum with
Pro Saddamers...wait!!!! Actually, given McGentrixs' track record, not astounding at all.

McGentrix you are the standard by which the bush inc. target demographic is measured.

I'd love to watch you fetch a frisbee for him.

Let me get this straight... Because I offer a different opinion on a topic that disagrees with a point of view, I am now some sort of dog? Is that how it works?

If you take offense by my comments, that must mean there is some truth
ehind them. Maybe you saddam sympathizers should take your hatred of America elsewhere.

Let me get this straight McGentrix, because my opinion differs from you I am a saddam sympathizer? Is that how it works?

If you take offense from my comments that must mean there is some truth behind them. Maybe you neo con bush inc. sympathizers should take your hatred of America and your attempts to systematically erode it's basic tenets and go elsewhere.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

I do believe that you called yourself pro Saddam. I did not call you that until after your self-proclamation. You said "Let me get this straight McGentrix, because my opinion differs from you I am a saddam sympathizer? Is that how it works? " So, you took it upon yourself to translate some Neal Boortz said into something I said and then took the offensive against me.

Read the posts BPB, perhaps you will see the error in your ways. I don't take kindly to insults and will give back what I receive.

0 Replies

Well McGentrix if you count down the number of posts, your first one was number seven. that's where you called the left Saddam sympathizers. You were not even addressed by me until that insulting generalization that you threw out about the left being saddam sympathizers. And not even in your own words, tsk tsk.

You are able to count right, smart guy like you?

Be careful what you say because everyone else on this forum can count as well.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
If you take offense by my comments, that must mean there is some truth behind them.

Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses!

Videmus ... suam cuique rem esse carissimam.

0 Replies

Since I haven't read much by Petronius, I can only answer with a more common sentence:

Et semel emissum volat irrevocabile verbum.

0 Replies

Quod sentimus, loquamur; quod loquimur, sentiamus; concordat sermo cum vita. -Seneca

0 Replies

Invenit patella operculum :wink:

0 Replies

McG said:

Quote:

If Iraq had no WMD after 1994, then what were they hiding? Every time inspectors would come around, it was known from satellite photos that the Iraqis were moving cargo and vehicles whenever the inspectors would come around. Then, Saddam Hussein kicked out the inspectors in 1998. If he had no banned weapons, then what was he hiding? Why was he trying to keep the inspectors out of certain areas?

Just a guess...

Saddam likely did not have WMDs but was likely telling his people that he did. In a government where "might is right", he probably felt that if he rolled over and let UN inspectors go everywhere - he wouldn't be able to maintain the respect of his army/population. He would appear weak to his people.

I don't think "weak" leaders last long in that part of the world.

0 Replies

Well Whaddaya Know?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know