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

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

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"

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!

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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!

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.

Brandon
You ailment. The Bush virus can be treated with two aspirins and logic.