Resolution to pull out of Iraq by 2006 - lead by Republican

1) According to Iraq, 1.5 tonnes of VX were discarded unilaterally by dumping on the ground.
2) Traces of one VX-degradation product and a chemical known as a VX-stabilizer were found in the samples taken from the VX dump sites.

3) A quantified assessment is not possible.

So, you can not substantiate the fact that Saddam did or did not in fact destroy all of his WMD's.

That's OK, Parados, better people than you have failed to do so as well. That's why we invaded Iraq.

McGentrix wrote:

So, you can not substantiate the fact that Saddam did or did not in fact destroy all of his WMD's.

That's OK, Parados, better people than you have failed to do so as well. That's why we invaded Iraq.

"Failing to verify" was not the claim you made. Or Brandon or woiyo...


If you want to change your position now. .OK.. but let us know you are changing it. You claimed he HAD WMD. Quite different from not being able to substantiate if they were destroyed.

Saddam posed a threat - in your mind. He didn't have the means to carry out any threat. Your imagination has overtaken your common sense, and that's almost impossible to penetrate.

If I give you an apple, I have reason to suspect that you have an apple. Until such time as I see someone else with that apple, an apple core, apple sauce, apple pie, receipts that you sold the apple, video tape of you eating that apple, or some other verifiable source proving you have disposed of that apple, it's really not so far fetched to assume you still have it.

You stated that UNSCOM can not, could not verify that Iraq disposed of all of it's WMD's. That is what all the intelligence agencies also deduced prior to the invasion of Iraq. That is why we invaded. To be sure that Saddam no longer posed a threat to the US, his neighbors, or the citizens of Iraq. WMD's are very dangerous and can not be allowed to fall into the hands of terrorists.

So, just so we are clear, I am not changing my position, I am just trying to wade through the illogical wall of defense you are trying to muster so you can recognize the fact that Saddam posed a threat.

McGentrix wrote:

If I give you an apple, I have reason to suspect that you have an apple. Until such time as I see someone else with that apple, an apple core, apple sauce, apple pie, receipts that you sold the apple, video tape of you eating that apple, or some other verifiable source proving you have disposed of that apple, it's really not so far fetched to assume you still have it.

You stated that UNSCOM can not, could not verify that Iraq disposed of all of it's WMD's. That is what all the intelligence agencies also deduced prior to the invasion of Iraq. That is why we invaded. To be sure that Saddam no longer posed a threat to the US, his neighbors, or the citizens of Iraq. WMD's are very dangerous and can not be allowed to fall into the hands of terrorists.

So, just so we are clear, I am not changing my position, I am just trying to wade through the illogical wall of defense you are trying to muster so you can recognize the fact that Saddam posed a threat.

So your position has always been that we invaded because Saddam MIGHT have WMD? and MIGHT be a threat? Nothing to do with a claim that he WAS a threat. Am I understanding you correctly? We only invaded because "UNSCOM can not, could not verify that Iraq disposed of all of it's WMD's." Is that your present position and has it always been your position?

By the way, if I have a bushel of apples and I say I destroyed them and take you to a site that has 30 apple seeds and some pieces of stems but you can't verify that it is an entire bushel does that mean you have NO verification? Or does it just mean you can't confirm positively that an entire bushel of apples was dumped there.

The absolute FACT is that the report confirmed that ALL weaponry was not accounted for. We know for a FACT, Saddam had intentions of rebuilding his stockpile.

Parados expects the US to believe Saddam and trust everything he said.

Sorry pal. You were wrong then and you are still wrong today.

Did I say "might"? Apparrently you are not understanding me correctly.

McGentrix wrote:

Did I say "might"? Apparrently you are not understanding me correctly.

OK, then you think he WAS a threat. Based on what? How was he a specific threat? Since "MIGHT" is not part of the threat situtation give us absolutes of how he was a threat.

ha ha ha ha ..... link to Powell's UN speech. ha ha ha ha ha .... he even showed photographs of those WMD sites that didn't exist when we invaded Iraq. ha ha ha ha .... and claimed we knew where Saddam's WMDs were located......ha ha ha ha.... McG still can't accept subsequent searches for those WMDs that didn't exist....for over two years by our military after our invasion.....no wonder they still think the way they do....they don't understand what lies from this administration is all about.....even Powell said recently he would not have said what he did if he had "full information." Even Powell is willing to admit his mistake, but people like McG will take their misinformation to their graves.....

parados wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Did I say "might"? Apparrently you are not understanding me correctly.

OK, then you think he WAS a threat. Based on what? How was he a specific threat? Since "MIGHT" is not part of the threat situtation give us absolutes of how he was a threat.

You can read all about it here.

UNSCOM estimates that Saddam Hussein could have produced 25,000 liters.

One of the most worrisome things that emerges from the thick intelligence file we have on Iraq's biological weapons is the existence of mobile production facilities used to make biological agents

We believe Saddam Hussein knows what he did with it,

"But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaida terrorist" network

Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent.

Apparently it is you who doesn't get it, McG....

Cycloptichorn