1
   

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

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 10:45 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
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.


"There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more…Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." (Colin Powell, 05.02.03)

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." (President Bush, 28.01.03)

"We know where the [WMD] are." (Don Rumsfeld, 30.03.03)

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." (Vice President Cheney, 26.02.02)

etc. etc. etc.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 10:48 am
"We have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material." (Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 02.10.03)

"Iraq did not have a large, ongoing,centrally controlled chemical weapons program after 1991… Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections." (Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 02.10.03)
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 10:48 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
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.


You wouldn't know the issue if it landed on an aircraft carrier in front of you in a rented flight suit.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 10:48 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
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.


Heed your own advice.

Bye!
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 10:49 am
kickycan wrote:
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".

He was correct to invade on the basis of WMD. These weapons are so lethal that we had to be sure. What Bush did or didn't say doesn't alter the fact that the totality of our history with Iraq and WMD left an unacceptable likelihood that they still had WMD or WMD programs.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 10:50 am
candidone1 wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
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.


Heed your own advice.

Bye!

No need to. I have been addressing the topic, whereas your posts have consisted of irrelevant jibes.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 10:50 am
When did absence of evidence become evidence of absence?

This "Saddam never had 'em!" chanting is utter BS.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 10:53 am
kickycan wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
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.


You wouldn't know the issue if it landed on an aircraft carrier in front of you in a rented flight suit.

The issue is whether or not the invasion of Iraq was justified, which I have consistently addressed and au1929 has consistently ignored in favor of ad hominem remarks.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 10:57 am
FreeDuck wrote:
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.

This remark is not useful in protecting ourselves against the danger they present now.

FreeDuck wrote:
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'.

You are misrepresenting my argument. I did not say that no one may have WMD. I said that of the numerous entities that will seek them, a few like Hussein - the worst of the worst dictators with ties to terrorism - may not.

FreeDuck wrote:
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.

We are certainly entitled to use force to protect ourselves after other means fail.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 11:01 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
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.


"There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more…Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." (Colin Powell, 05.02.03)

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." (President Bush, 28.01.03)

"We know where the [WMD] are." (Don Rumsfeld, 30.03.03)

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." (Vice President Cheney, 26.02.02)

etc. etc. etc.

Since the use of even one WMD in our cities could, in some cases, cause a loss of life much greater than the tsunami in Asia has, Iraq's history with WMD left too great a probability that he still had the weapons or the development programs. Your quotations are irrelevant.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 11:03 am
Brandon,

You might hurt my family someday. So I'm going to kill you right now to keep that from happening.

I have the right to defend myself. I believe and have good evidence right now that you might someday purchase a gun. That gives me all the justification I need to invade your home and lock you up, for life, if not kill you. We HAVE to be sure; after all the life of my family is worth any sacrifice you have to make, isn't it?

You may not like it at first, but give it time! We'll go ahead and lock your kids up as well, they might grow up to hurt my kids too. Plus, I'm going to blow some of your stuff up and take some of it. I'm going to kill your dog by accident, but ya gotta break some eggs, yaknow?

I fully expect you to comply with this immediately or suffer the consequences.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 11:04 am
JustWonders wrote:
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.


jw

I still owe you a response to your pm...sorry, it'll come.

On the issue of the CBS reporting (and related matters suggested in your post), the best thing I've read is from the Columbia Journalism Review...
high quality. PD...you'll want to look at this too.
http://www.cjr.org/issues/2005/1/pein-blog.asp
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 11:06 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Brandon,

You might hurt my family someday. So I'm going to kill you right now to keep that from happening.

I have the right to defend myself. I believe and have good evidence right now that you might someday purchase a gun. That gives me all the justification I need to invade your home and lock you up, for life, if not kill you. We HAVE to be sure; after all the life of my family is worth any sacrifice you have to make, isn't it?

You may not like it at first, but give it time! We'll go ahead and lock your kids up as well, they might grow up to hurt my kids too. Plus, I'm going to blow some of your stuff up and take some of it. I'm going to kill your dog by accident, but ya gotta break some eggs, yaknow?

I fully expect you to comply with this immediately or suffer the consequences.

Cycloptichorn

If I were a known serial murderer and I had recently bought guns, you would be justified in seeking to have them taken away from me.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 11:10 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
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.

This remark is not useful in protecting ourselves against the danger they present now.


I wasn't aiming for useful.

Quote:

FreeDuck wrote:
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'.

You are misrepresenting my argument. I did not say that no one may have WMD. I said that of the numerous entities that will seek them, a few like Hussein - the worst of the worst dictators with ties to terrorism - may not.


Saddam did not have ties to the terrorists that we are fighting, and his ties to Palestinian terrorists are flimsy at best. But wouldn't a country with no ties to terrorism, but who had WMD and a weak economy be just as dangerous? For wouldn't they be willing to sell them to terrorists? And wouldn't a list of these countries be at least 3 countries long?

Quote:

FreeDuck wrote:
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.

We are certainly entitled to use force to protect ourselves after other means fail.


We did not go to Iraq to protect ourselves. By your argument, we we invaded Iraq 'to be sure' that they were not an indirect threat. That's a rather new and very low threshold.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 11:10 am
That doesn't matter at all. All that matters is that I say that you are. I make the justifications here. It doesn't matter if only a few people agree and most disagree. We'll find out after the fact whether I was right or wrong or not. WE HAVE TO BE SURE.

Noone said I was just going to take your guns away from you - I'm going to lock you up. Take your family away. Tell you how your household will be run from now on. I'm going to blow your garage up in the name of peace. If your son fights back, we'll kill him and call him an insurgent. Don't like the way I run your house from now on? Too f*cking bad.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 11:10 am
McGentrix wrote:
When did absence of evidence become evidence of absence?

This "Saddam never had 'em!" chanting is utter BS.

When did absence of counterevidence become evidence?

You can't prove he didnt have them, so we're right to assume he did!

This "Saddam had 'em, he must have!" chanting is utter BS.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 11:11 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
kickycan wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
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.


You wouldn't know the issue if it landed on an aircraft carrier in front of you in a rented flight suit.

The issue is whether or not the invasion of Iraq was justified, which I have consistently addressed and au1929 has consistently ignored in favor of ad hominem remarks.


No, it's not. You see, you're just so excited to spew your conservative clown college point of view that you can't see it.

Walter pointed out that we have concluded that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Then he pointed out some quotes from our leaders, relevant to the point that Bush and the current idiots running this country trumped up and...dare I say it? LIED about evidence of weapons of mass destruction in order to take us into Iraq.

THAT is the point.

So why don't you take your own advice and either address the issue or leave?
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 11:11 am
Brandon, did you see Walter's post here and here?

Many of us do not necessarily oppose the war entirely, but combine all the ex post facto justifications with the impotent initial justifications, and nothing adds up.
Bushco. has successfully indoctrinated you with his fear of the other campaign.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 11:12 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
The issue is whether or not the invasion of Iraq was justified, which I have consistently addressed and au1929 has consistently ignored in favor of ad hominem remarks.

Actually, it isn't. Please refer back to the original post of this thread.

The thread is not about how you might still think the invasion was justified, according to your own arguments, anyway. It's about the finding that the presence of WMD, claimed by the government as the primary reason to go to war, has turned out to lack any shred of evidence.

A given that you've gone to great lengths to avoid addressing.

Brandon9000 wrote:
Since the use of even one WMD in our cities could, in some cases, cause a loss of life much greater than the tsunami in Asia has, Iraq's history with WMD left too great a probability that he still had the weapons or the development programs. Your quotations are irrelevant.

They are irrelevant to your argument for the Iraq war; they are not irrelevant to the government's main argument to go to war, which is the one this thread is addressing.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2005 11:19 am
Well, there are (imagine preceeding word in italic) weapons of mass destruction: they're called insurrgents and we created them.
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 0.05 seconds on 07/24/2024 at 04:20:03