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

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.

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.

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.

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".

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

When did absence of evidence become evidence of absence?

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

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.

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.

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.