2
   

Released Iraqi documents - what do they tell us?

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2006 08:24 pm
parados wrote:
okie wrote:
You missed his point entirely.


What was his point other than a lot of illogical arguments?


His point was that not finding actual WMD does not change the justification to go there. We already knew he was involved with the programs. Just because the police do not find drugs in a known drug dealers house does not mean the drug dealer did not deal in drugs. After all, if drug paraphenalia is found, isn't that enough? After all, the police do not need the drugs, and neither do we need the WMD; we already have plenty, which was pointed out satirically. We either found or knew of remnants and various parts and equipment, as we also knew of his scientists involved in the WMD programs, in other words the drug paraphenalia.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2006 08:34 pm
If that was his point then why did you have to come up with a better analogy? Maybe his point wasn't too clear or well thought out.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jun, 2006 11:28 pm
parados wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
parados wrote:
Maybe someone should tell the Bush administration that Syria has WMD since he got all of them from Iraq.

That has to be it because Bush would never get anything wrong. Except he now has it wrong about Syria not having WMD because he wouldn't have been wrong about Iraq and WMD.

You guys are so predictable at this point. Anything to pretend you to defend your support of a failed policy.
Maybe space aliens took the WMD. That sounds reasonable too.

AS IF IT MATTERS !
Suppose that a professional murderer
accepted a contract to kill u with his ax.
If u find out about it,
and pre-emptively have him incapacitated,
it matters NOT that u did not find his ax,
as long as HE is out of action.

David

You have a copy of that contract?

You do realize it would be against the law for you to do that to another person without a direct provable threat. For you to attack and incapacitate another without evidence of his being a real and immediate threat would make you guilty of assault. It matters not how much you wanted to believe he was a threat. You would have to provide evidence of that threat. Of course you could take the insanity defense, which might be appropriate in the case you layed out.

No.
We are not in a court of law.


In order for the war to be lawful,
only the consent of Congress is necessary.
( Arguably, such a war wud be lawful even WITHOUT
Congressional approval
,
altho it wud not be possible, without Congressional funding.

Note that most of America 's wars were fought
without Congressional declarations of war,
and that there in nothing in the Constitution
to prohibit a President from waging war
without a declaration of war. )

When a man is elected President,
it is his responsibility to keep America safe from alien enemies.

W well knew that Saddam is a homicidal maniac
( since the age of 10 ) with a vindictive nature
and a grudge against us ( for Kuwait )
and dangerous hobbies with vast oil wealth to support
his adventures, to say nothing of his living next door
to a lot of half straving Russian nuclear scientists
n half starved Russian solidiers.

W has been a VERY GOOD PRESIDENT
in keeping America safe from Saddam pulling a nuclear 9/11 on us
.
For that he has my deep gratitude
and deserves every American 's love.

However,
we won the war
as soon as we arrested Saddam.
If W feels like it ( after trial n conviction )
we can put Saddam in the same cell
as Manuel Noriega.

We have no further reason to linger there.
Let 's get out.
David
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jun, 2006 11:35 pm
How can anyone say, "We won the war"?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jun, 2006 11:43 pm
parados wrote:
okie,
Even Bush isn't silly enough to claim the WMD went to Syria.


Please explain
what is " silly " about WMDs going to Syria ?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jun, 2006 04:07 pm
http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jun, 2006 05:59 pm
OmSigDAVID wrote:
parados wrote:
okie,
Even Bush isn't silly enough to claim the WMD went to Syria.


Please explain
what is " silly " about WMDs going to Syria ?


If you have to ask then you haven't done any research.

What WMDs? The final result of the US search is that NONE existed.
There were none - end of story.

It is a silly conspiracy theory to claim they existed and were moved to Syria. There is no evidence to support such a theory.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jun, 2006 06:16 pm
parados wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
parados wrote:
okie,
Even Bush isn't silly enough to claim the WMD went to Syria.


Please explain
what is " silly " about WMDs going to Syria ?


If you have to ask then you haven't done any research.

What WMDs? The final result of the US search is that NONE existed.
There were none - end of story.

It is a silly conspiracy theory to claim they existed and were moved to Syria. There is no evidence to support such a theory.

Assuming, for the moment,
that u were correct in that they did not exist,
that does not render the concept of moving or concealing
contraband to be " silly ".

U distort history.
They did NOT find that they never existed.
They USED some of them on the Iranians
n on the Kurds. We saw the pictures of the dead corpses
from the non-extant WMDs.


Did u forget the top level Iraqian defectors ( Saddam 's own family )
who came to American TV and said that Saddam
was building nukes ? and also arranging to buy them from nextdoor ?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jun, 2006 06:21 pm
OmSigDAVID wrote:
parados wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
parados wrote:
okie,
Even Bush isn't silly enough to claim the WMD went to Syria.


Please explain
what is " silly " about WMDs going to Syria ?


If you have to ask then you haven't done any research.

What WMDs? The final result of the US search is that NONE existed.
There were none - end of story.

It is a silly conspiracy theory to claim they existed and were moved to Syria. There is no evidence to support such a theory.

Assuming, for the moment,
that u were correct in that they did not exist,
that does not render the concept of moving or concealing
contraband to be " silly ".

U distort history.
They did NOT find that they never existed.
They USED some of them on the Iranians
n on the Kurds. We saw the pictures of the dead corpses
from the non-extant WMDs.


Did u forget the top level Iraqian defectors ( Saddam 's own family )
who came to American TV and said that Saddam
was building nukes ? and also arranging to buy them from nextdoor ?

Of course Saddan had WMD in 1989. So what? That doesn't prove they existed in 2003.

The UN oversaw the destruction of the WMD Saddam had in 1991. Things don't still exist when they cease to exist.

Did you miss the memo telling you the claims by Curveball were false?

It's even sillier to claim that evidence of WMD in 1989 proves Saddam had WMD in 2003. It shows willful ignorance or outright......
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jun, 2006 06:37 pm
Parados:

U posted :

" What WMDs? The final result of the US search is that NONE existed.
There were none - end of story. "

I disproved your allegations.

Now u try to slip out,
hoping that we will forget what u said.
David
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jun, 2006 08:09 pm
No WMD existed at the time they were supposedly shipped to Syria.


Trying to time shift when they did exist to when they didn't is just as silly as the rest of your argument. You proved nothing so far. But keep at it, you are starting to prove one thing and it has nothing to do with WMD.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jun, 2006 09:54 pm
parados wrote:
No WMD existed at the time they were supposedly shipped to Syria.


Trying to time shift when they did exist to when they didn't is just as silly as the rest of your argument. You proved nothing so far. But keep at it, you are starting to prove one thing and it has nothing to do with WMD.


Parados, were you there at the time? Where is your proof to make such a definite statement?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2006 01:46 am
parados wrote:
No WMD existed at the time they were supposedly shipped to Syria.


Trying to time shift when they did exist to when they didn't is just as silly as the rest of your argument.
You proved nothing so far. But keep at it, you are starting to prove one thing and it has nothing to do with WMD.

I have no need to convince u of ANYTHING.
I HAVE what I wanted: Saddam is in an American jail
and his evil spawn have been killed.
While u bitch n moan, I will exult.


In my vu,
we can get the hell out now.

We won the war the moment we captured Saddam.
It does not behoove us to turn Iraq into a garden spot,
as we did with Germany and Japan.
David
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2006 02:18 am
You may have a point, Om Sig David. Those who have good information on Iraq know that about 40-50%of the people are Shiites while only 20% are Sunnis. If there were no one around to restrain them the Shiites would massacre the Sunnis.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2006 02:30 am
Its W 's job to take care of the Americans
( consistent with and in furtherance of Article II of the Constitution ).
He did that, to my satisfaction,
thereby earning my gratitude.

The well being of the Sunnis is not our problem.
David
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2006 05:38 pm
Mr. Parados is being ridiculous. He does not know whether any WMD's existed at the time when they were supposedly shipped to Syria.

I can, of course, supply quotes and documentation on the following:

Clinton thought Saddam had WMDS.

The intelligence services of the USA AND GERMANY, FRANCE, AND BRITAN thought Saddam had WMD's

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, AL GORE AND JOHN KERRY ARE ON RECORD WITH SPEECHES SAYING THAT SADDAM HAD WMD'S IN 2002-2002-2002-2002.

But, Mr. Parados, with no documentation says, that NO WMD'S existed when they were supposedly shipped to Syria.

I am sorry, Mr. Parados, but, in the light of the evidence I have posted, you will have to do much better than that!!!!
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2006 08:24 pm
Of course, we shouldn't believe the US government that did a report and said that.

We should trust people that didn't do any checking.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2006 08:26 pm
Bernard,
What people believed has no bearing on the reality of whether they existed or not. A complete search by US forces and a team designed for that purpose concluded there were no WMD at the time of the invasion.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2006 09:33 pm
parados wrote:
Bernard,
What people believed has no bearing on the reality of whether they existed or not. A complete search by US forces and a team designed for that purpose concluded there were no WMD at the time of the invasion.


Teams designed for that purpose before the war were wrong according to you, Parados, so what stops them from being wrong again? What people believe now ---does IT have any bearing on reality any more than it did then.

Frankly, I don't know, and I don't think they know anything for sure. The point is it doesn't matter really. We got rid of Hussein who had WMD programs, whether he had WMD right before the war or not, and now he doesn't have them anymore.

And OmSigDavid may have a point. The problem with Hussein was separate from the problem we have now. What is the best thing to do now from this day forward?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2006 09:46 pm
okie wrote:
parados wrote:
Bernard,
What people believed has no bearing on the reality of whether they existed or not. A complete search by US forces and a team designed for that purpose concluded there were no WMD at the time of the invasion.


Teams designed for that purpose before the war were wrong according to you, Parados, so what stops them from being wrong again?
What teams were wrong? UNSCOM said they could find no WMD. Do you know of a team that did say they found WMD in 2003? I don't know of any.

Quote:
What people believe now ---does IT have any bearing on reality any more than it did then.

Frankly, I don't know, and I don't think they know anything for sure. The point is it doesn't matter really. We got rid of Hussein who had WMD programs, whether he had WMD right before the war or not, and now he doesn't have them anymore.

And OmSigDavid may have a point. The problem with Hussein was separate from the problem we have now. What is the best thing to do now from this day forward?
Which all has nothing to do with the claim that WMD were moved to Syria.

Do you think WMD was moved to Syria from Iraq in 2003? Yes or no? You seem to be defending that claim so do you believe it is true?

Since no WMD existed in 2003 they could not be moved. It has no bearing on what was believed prior to the war. The only question is how can you move nonexistent WMD to Syria.
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
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/14/2019 at 02:09:32