1
   

IRAQ: no WMD's - nothing, zero, nada, zip, f#ck-all

 
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 08:12 am
Never.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 08:13 am
"The White House confirmed today that the search in Iraq for the banned weapons it had cited as justifying the war that ousted Saddam Hussein has been quietly ended after nearly two years, with no evidence of their existence."

Good job!. Based upon worldwide intel during the 10 years of ignoring the terms of surrender by the UN and others, the coalition has accomplished their mission and we should immediately start withdrawing troops and let the Iraqis run their own country.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 08:14 am
I rest my case.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 08:26 am
blatham wrote:
god, isn't it tempting to go back to the early US, UN and Iraq threads and paste all those 'knowledge claims' from timber et al up here on the blackboard


Why leave out the Candian Intelligence Services??

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2004/05/11/pf-455210.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/14_07_04butler_chaps1to4.pdf

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2004/05/11/pf-455210.html

"Prime Minister Paul Martin says he believes Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and they've fallen into terrorists' hands. Martin said the threat of terrorism is even greater now than it was following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, because terrorists have acquired nuclear, chemical and biological weapons from the toppled Iraqi leader"
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 08:35 am
It's too early to tell whether yesterday's official announcement that really, for sure, no kidding, there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, will get as much play in the media as the report on the "60 Minutes" fiasco released on Monday. The two news stories share one element: neither was exactly a whopping surprise, after months of revelations.

Actually, there is something else they share: neither scandal would have ever happened if journalists had done a better job.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 08:46 am
woiyo wrote:
blatham wrote:
god, isn't it tempting to go back to the early US, UN and Iraq threads and paste all those 'knowledge claims' from timber et al up here on the blackboard


Why leave out the Candian Intelligence Services??

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2004/05/11/pf-455210.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/14_07_04butler_chaps1to4.pdf

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2004/05/11/pf-455210.html

"Prime Minister Paul Martin says he believes Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and they've fallen into terrorists' hands. Martin said the threat of terrorism is even greater now than it was following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, because terrorists have acquired nuclear, chemical and biological weapons from the toppled Iraqi leader"


Well, as a Canadian, and as a liberal Canadian, I can't agree that because Paul Martin believed there were WMD in Iraq, there were in fact WMD in Iraq. Maritn has his head so far up a certain body cavity that anything he says comes out smelling funny.
He couldn't even figure out where amost a billion dollars of misappropriated funds went...while he was finance minister.


The quote at the top of page 20 on that 2nd link looks funny to me (the PDF file)
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 08:47 am
au1929 wrote:
When do you think we will see some or any of the " I know that there are WMD's in Iraq" defenders now admit they were wrong. You know who you are! Embarrassed Embarrassed


That defies the Bush mantra in the face of error...
0 Replies
 
RfromP
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 09:09 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
I wonder, why you co-lefties complain: the USA really did a good job there:

Quote:
besides searching for WMDs, the United States also has provided employment for some 120 Iraqi scientists, who worked on Saddam's plans to make weapons.


Hooray! Now maybe they can do something for the 8.0 million unemployed in our own country.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 09:12 am
PDiddie wrote:
It's too early to tell whether yesterday's official announcement that really, for sure, no kidding, there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, will get as much play in the media as the report on the "60 Minutes" fiasco released on Monday. The two news stories share one element: neither was exactly a whopping surprise, after months of revelations.

Actually, there is something else they share: neither scandal would have ever happened if journalists had done a better job.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 09:26 am
candidone1 wrote:
au1929 wrote:
When do you think we will see some or any of the " I know that there are WMD's in Iraq" defenders now admit they were wrong. You know who you are! Embarrassed Embarrassed


That defies the Bush mantra in the face of error...

Your lack of comprehension of the invasion of Iraq is really extraordinary. It is just this simple:

In the future, various nations and private groups will attempt to acquire WMD. Of these, some - terrorist groups and the worst of the worst dictators with ties to terror - simply cannot be allowed to have them. The world simply cannot allow weapons so powerful that one single use of one single weapon can kill a million people to propagate without restraint.

Whenever a country or organization of the type I have described seeks WMD, an effort must be made to stop it peacefully. However, if a certain amount of time passes and it still cannot be reliably verified that the entity in question has destroyed the weapons and shut down the development programs, military action will have to be taken to insure disarmament. It is very odd that you are justifiably concerned about the thousands killed in the invasion, but show not a whit of concern for the millions who could die should a WMD ever be used in a population center. Bush did what had to be done. After a dozen years of playing game with Iraq, there was still no verifiable disarmament. With millions of lives at stake, he had to act, as will whoever is president the next time a similar situation arises, as it surely will.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 10:03 am
Brandon9000
Same old same old. Won't you ever graciously admit you were "mistaken". I think you must have the common ailment of the right wing The "George Bush"virus.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 10:10 am
au1929 wrote:
Brandon9000
Same old same old. Won't you ever graciously admit you were "mistaken". I think you must have the common ailment of the right wing The "George Bush"virus.

How telling that you did not in any way address my argument. I am not at all mistaken, you are, and it really is approaching the point of annoying stupidity. In a world in which a few guys can smuggle a single weapon into your country and kill a million people, one has to be very sure that people like Hussein do not have WMD, as you, yourself, may finally see when a WMD is someday used against the west.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 10:20 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
candidone1 wrote:
au1929 wrote:
When do you think we will see some or any of the " I know that there are WMD's in Iraq" defenders now admit they were wrong. You know who you are! Embarrassed Embarrassed


That defies the Bush mantra in the face of error...

Your lack of comprehension of the invasion of Iraq is really extraordinary. It is just this simple:

In the future, various nations and private groups will attempt to acquire WMD. Of these, some - terrorist groups and the worst of the worst dictators with ties to terror - simply cannot be allowed to have them. The world simply cannot allow weapons so powerful that one single use of one single weapon can kill a million people to propagate without restraint.

Whenever a country or organization of the type I have described seeks WMD, an effort must be made to stop it peacefully. However, if a certain amount of time passes and it still cannot be reliably verified that the entity in question has destroyed the weapons and shut down the development programs, military action will have to be taken to insure disarmament. It is very odd that you are justifiably concerned about the thousands killed in the invasion, but show not a whit of concern for the millions who could die should a WMD ever be used in a population center. Bush did what had to be done. After a dozen years of playing game with Iraq, there was still no verifiable disarmament. With millions of lives at stake, he had to act, as will whoever is president the next time a similar situation arises, as it surely will.



How telling that you didn't once address what au1929 or candidone said in your original post. I liked the Rush Limbaugh impersonation though. Are you on any pharmaceuticals right now?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 10:21 am
Brandon
Give it up. Saddam did not have any WMD's is that plain enough for even you to see. As for your argument. You have written the same thing many times before . It appears to be boiler plate.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 10:25 am
au1929 wrote:
Brandon
Give it up. Saddam did not have any WMD's is that plain enough for even you to see. As for your argument. You have written the same thing many times before . It appears to be boiler plate.

Unbelievable. Absolutely. The question is not whether or not he ultimately turned out to have WMD. The point is that at the time of the invasion, the remaining probability that he might have retained WMD or WMD programs was large enough that we had to go in and be sure. I am sorry I don't vary my responses for your benefit, but the truth is the truth. People who actually know what they are talking about tend to be consistent in the way they repond to the same question.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 10:28 am
kickycan wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
candidone1 wrote:
au1929 wrote:
When do you think we will see some or any of the " I know that there are WMD's in Iraq" defenders now admit they were wrong. You know who you are! Embarrassed Embarrassed


That defies the Bush mantra in the face of error...

Your lack of comprehension of the invasion of Iraq is really extraordinary. It is just this simple:

In the future, various nations and private groups will attempt to acquire WMD. Of these, some - terrorist groups and the worst of the worst dictators with ties to terror - simply cannot be allowed to have them. The world simply cannot allow weapons so powerful that one single use of one single weapon can kill a million people to propagate without restraint.

Whenever a country or organization of the type I have described seeks WMD, an effort must be made to stop it peacefully. However, if a certain amount of time passes and it still cannot be reliably verified that the entity in question has destroyed the weapons and shut down the development programs, military action will have to be taken to insure disarmament. It is very odd that you are justifiably concerned about the thousands killed in the invasion, but show not a whit of concern for the millions who could die should a WMD ever be used in a population center. Bush did what had to be done. After a dozen years of playing game with Iraq, there was still no verifiable disarmament. With millions of lives at stake, he had to act, as will whoever is president the next time a similar situation arises, as it surely will.



How telling that you didn't once address what au1929 or candidone said in your original post.

What did he say that was addressable? Tell me and I promise to address it.

kickycan wrote:
I liked the Rush Limbaugh impersonation though. Are you on any pharmaceuticals right now?

How sad that the only way some people can make a point is to completely ignore the actual issue and simply insult the person on the other side of the debate. If you're going to make irrelevant, insulting remarks, at least address the line of argument first.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 10:36 am
Brandon
You ailment. The Bush virus can be treated with two aspirins and logic.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 10:37 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
The world simply cannot allow weapons so powerful that one single use of one single weapon can kill a million people to propagate without restraint.


This might have been a good thing to think about when we were busy developing the nuclear bomb.

Brandon, if just needing to be sure that another country does not posess WMD is a valid justification for war then we better get to building up our military because we will need to occupy the entire planet in order to 'be sure'. We are not entitled to use force as a means to assure a sense of absolute safety. If we were, then so would other nations be, and I'm sure you can see what follows from there.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 10:43 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
kickycan wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
candidone1 wrote:
au1929 wrote:
When do you think we will see some or any of the " I know that there are WMD's in Iraq" defenders now admit they were wrong. You know who you are! Embarrassed Embarrassed


That defies the Bush mantra in the face of error...

Your lack of comprehension of the invasion of Iraq is really extraordinary. It is just this simple:

In the future, various nations and private groups will attempt to acquire WMD. Of these, some - terrorist groups and the worst of the worst dictators with ties to terror - simply cannot be allowed to have them. The world simply cannot allow weapons so powerful that one single use of one single weapon can kill a million people to propagate without restraint.

Whenever a country or organization of the type I have described seeks WMD, an effort must be made to stop it peacefully. However, if a certain amount of time passes and it still cannot be reliably verified that the entity in question has destroyed the weapons and shut down the development programs, military action will have to be taken to insure disarmament. It is very odd that you are justifiably concerned about the thousands killed in the invasion, but show not a whit of concern for the millions who could die should a WMD ever be used in a population center. Bush did what had to be done. After a dozen years of playing game with Iraq, there was still no verifiable disarmament. With millions of lives at stake, he had to act, as will whoever is president the next time a similar situation arises, as it surely will.



How telling that you didn't once address what au1929 or candidone said in your original post.

What did he say that was addressable? Tell me and I promise to address it.

kickycan wrote:
I liked the Rush Limbaugh impersonation though. Are you on any pharmaceuticals right now?

How sad that the only way some people can make a point is to completely ignore the actual issue and simply insult the person on the other side of the debate. If you're going to make irrelevant, insulting remarks, at least address the line of argument first.


Oooh, Brandon's all fired up boys. The point of this thread is that your favorite little action figure made up a whole bunch of **** so that he could convince people that we needed to go to Iraq. Said **** has now been confirmed by our own government to be complete bullshit. You trying to switch the topic to your own little pet argument is your way of diverting the point. The reason Bush gave for the invasion was WMDs.

Once you address that, then maybe I'll address your ranting about how "we live in a dangerous world".
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 10:44 am
au1929 wrote:
Brandon
You ailment. The Bush virus can be treated with two aspirins and logic.

I will take your refusal to debate the issue as a sign that you cannot. This being the case, I suggest you leave the thread to those who can.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/18/2024 at 12:35:45