4
   

Remind Me Again... We're Staying In Iraq Why?

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 02:28 pm
Oh

My

God . . .


Are you saying that not all the dinosaurs have been accounted for . . .


RUN FOR YOUR LIVES ! ! !
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 03:45 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Problem is Joe, and it's a problem shared with you by Cycloptichorn apparently, is that WMD's did exist and evidence of their destruction has not been made. Until such time as that evidence is provided, it should be assumed that they still exist in some form. As long as they do, they represent a grave threat due to the unknown location and ownership.

I've expressed before on this board (actually, it was over three years ago) my reservations regarding the inclusion of chemical weapons among the class of "weapons of mass destruction." Putting those reservations aside, the only WMDs that we knew Iraq had in its possession at any time were chemical weapons that it used in the Iran-Iraq War and shortly thereafter. Even if such weapons had not been fully accounted for, and we were thus obliged to assume that they were still in existence in 2003, such weapons would have been seriously degraded by then. Far from being weapons of mass destruction, such superannuated duds would have proved incapable of being even weapons of limited destruction. It is simply absurd, then, to claim that these chemical weapons posed a "grave threat" to anybody, even ignoring for the moment that there was no evidence that Iraq had a weapons delivery system capable of reaching the US.

McGentrix wrote:
There are far to many doubts as to there whereabouts to ignore the fact that they may be in the hands of terrorists or terrorist sympathizers.

I'll gladly take my chances with a terrorist carrying a decade-old dud shell in exchange for a complete withdrawl of all US troops from Iraq.

McGentrix wrote:
That is why your "underwear gnome" analogy fails.

Figures that you'd turn out to be a gnome sympathizer.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 03:49 pm
old europe wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Problem is Joe, and it's a problem shared with you by Cycloptichorn apparently, is that WMD's did exist and evidence of their destruction has not been made. Until such time as that evidence is provided, it should be assumed that they still exist in some form.


Of course, the same argument can be made about dinosaurs...

Alas, that argument has been tried before on McGentrix, to no avail.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 04:13 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Problem is Joe, and it's a problem shared with you by Cycloptichorn apparently, is that WMD's did exist and evidence of their destruction has not been made. Until such time as that evidence is provided, it should be assumed that they still exist in some form. As long as they do, they represent a grave threat due to the unknown location and ownership.

There are far to many doubts as to there whereabouts to ignore the fact that they may be in the hands of terrorists or terrorist sympathizers.

That is why your "underwear gnome" analogy fails.

Actually, evidence of much of their destruction does exist. The UN oversaw the destruction or has confirmed the destruction of over 90% of Iraq's known WMD. The list of unconfirmed is actually quite small. Some evidence exists but not enough to make an absolute determination.

UNSCOM report on Iraqi WMD

Your "list" of Iraqi WMD isn't a list at all. It contains not a single mention of a WMD known to be possessed by Iraq in 2002 or 2001, or even 1998. It contains a lot of speculation after the fact about Iraq's "programs".
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 09:19 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Problem is Joe, and it's a problem shared with you by Cycloptichorn apparently, is that WMD's did exist and evidence of their destruction has not been made. Until such time as that evidence is provided, it should be assumed that they still exist in some form. As long as they do, they represent a grave threat due to the unknown location and ownership.

There are far to many doubts as to there whereabouts to ignore the fact that they may be in the hands of terrorists or terrorist sympathizers.

That is why your "underwear gnome" analogy fails.


You do remember this McG.....

Quote:
The 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq's illicit weapons capability and, for the most part, Saddam Hussein did not try to rebuild it, according to an extensive report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that contradicts nearly every prewar assertion made by top administration officials about Iraq.

Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, said Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program."

The findings were similar on biological and chemical weapons. While Hussein had long dreamed of developing an arsenal of biological agents, his stockpiles had been destroyed and research stopped years before the United States led the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Duelfer said Hussein hoped someday to resume a chemical weapons effort after U.N. sanctions ended, but had no stocks and had not researched making the weapons for a dozen years.



Further on, these statements were made by John Edwards:

Quote:
"Now we have a report today that there clearly were no weapons of mass destruction," Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), the Democratic vice presidential candidate, said in West Palm Beach, Fla. "All of that known, and Dick Cheney said again last night that he would have done everything the same. George Bush has said he would have done everything the same. . . . They are in a complete state of denial about what is happening in Iraq."



Source

State of Denial for sure.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 07:44 am
Iraq Survey Group Final Report
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 09:06 am
The fact remains McG....intel regarding Saddam's alleged WMD program was highly manipulated and greatly exaggerated by the Bush administration.
There were doubts regarding the integrity of the intel and the urgency of the threat posed by Iraq and these suspicions have all been confirmed after the fact.
No amount of information gathered prior to 2004 can negate this.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 09:13 am
McGentrix wrote:
Iraq Survey Group Final Report

The final paragraph of this report.

If WMD existed

You are quoting the section that is titled..

Alternative Hypotheses on Iraq's Nonuse of WMD During Operation Iraqi Freedom


You do know what "alternate" and "Hypothesis" mean, don't you McG?



From the part titled..
Sorting Out Whether Iraq Had WMD Before Operation Iraqi Freedom
Quote:
ISG has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn possessed WMD stocks in 2003
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 09:45 am
Parados, have you seen me post that this is anything more then a theory or hypothesis? Credible witnesses have stated that many WMD's were moved out of the country. Thousands of pages of documents have yet to be translated dealing directly with Saddam's WMD's and WMD programs. There are many bombs and artillery shells still un accounted for as well as chemical and biological agents and precursors.

To simply stick ones head in the sand and babble on and on that these things do not exist is beyond stupid, it's dangerous.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 10:12 am
Who is sticking their head in the sand?

We had a qualified team do the research. They stated there is no evidence of any WMD.

Stupid is to believe something exists without any credible evidence of it. Your credible witnesses are who? The people doing the research didn't find them credible.

We haven't translated all the documents is hardly evidence of anything. The documents could translate to read "McGentrix is a fool" I guess that proves you are one then. Any other conclusion would be sticking your head in the sand.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 10:15 am
McGentrix wrote:
Parados, have you seen me post that this is anything more then a theory or hypothesis? Credible witnesses have stated that many WMD's were moved out of the country. Thousands of pages of documents have yet to be translated dealing directly with Saddam's WMD's and WMD programs. There are many bombs and artillery shells still un accounted for as well as chemical and biological agents and precursors.

To simply stick ones head in the sand and babble on and on that these things do not exist is beyond stupid, it's dangerous.


If the central hypothesis is that the bombs exist but have been moved, what logic was there in attacking Iraq?
If credible witnesses have stated that the WMD were moved, then a priori claims that Iraq possessed WMD were false and the premise of your argument is invalid.

If you are merely projecting a theory or an hypothesis, you need stop for a moment to actually consider the facts of the matter.
Or do facts just get in the way?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 10:16 am
Quote:
Credible witnesses


Sorry, you're not qualified to judge whether there are credible witnesses or not.

You see, those who have supported the war from day one - such as yourself - have been wrong about nearly everything having to do with the conflict in Iraq. Therefore, you no longer can be trusted to make sound judgements with regard to the war in Iraq.

The people of America agree with me; hence, the 'will of the electorate' throwing your bums out of power and putting my bums in power.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 10:23 am
parados wrote:
Who is sticking their head in the sand?

We had a qualified team do the research. They stated there is no evidence of any WMD.

Stupid is to believe something exists without any credible evidence of it. Your credible witnesses are who? The people doing the research didn't find them credible.

We haven't translated all the documents is hardly evidence of anything. The documents could translate to read "McGentrix is a fool" I guess that proves you are one then. Any other conclusion would be sticking your head in the sand.


Holy cow! Do you actually read anything or do you just look at the pretty words and make shite up as you go?

Quote:
They found no evidence...


THEY MAY HAVE BEEN MOVED.

Quote:
Stupid is to believe something exists without any credible evidence of it.


THEY EXIST UNTIL THEY DON'T EXIST ANY LONGER. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THEY WERE ALL DESTROYED.

Quote:
We haven't translated all the documents is hardly evidence of anything.


Shocked ...you leave me speechless is your stupidity. I just don't think I can reply to you any longer if this is your thought process.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 10:25 am
Quote:
David Kay, the former head of the coalition's hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, yesterday claimed that part of Saddam Hussein's secret weapons programme was hidden in Syria.

In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Dr Kay, who last week resigned as head of the Iraq Survey Group, said that he had uncovered evidence that unspecified materials had been moved to Syria shortly before last year's war to overthrow Saddam.


Source

Quote:
But


Source

"Credible Wintesses"....uh huh.
Name a few McG.
Same bunch who still think Hussein conspired with bin Laden in 9/11 I'm sure.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 10:27 am
Note, "Congressional Officials"....in previous post.
Not some unnamed "credible witness"....like, uh, curveball, for instance.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 10:27 am
candidone1 wrote:
If the central hypothesis is that the bombs exist but have been moved, what logic was there in attacking Iraq?
If credible witnesses have stated that the WMD were moved, then a priori claims that Iraq possessed WMD were false and the premise of your argument is invalid.

If you are merely projecting a theory or an hypothesis, you need stop for a moment to actually consider the facts of the matter.
Or do facts just get in the way?


No one stepped forward with the information that WMD's were moved until Saddam was no longer in the picture. Prior to any invasion, no one knew that Saddam may have moved his existing WMD's. It was a secret, and unlike the US government, Saddam was able to actually keep secret things secret.

Is this really that hard an idea to grasp?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 10:29 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Credible witnesses


Sorry, you're not qualified to judge whether there are credible witnesses or not.

You see, those who have supported the war from day one - such as yourself - have been wrong about nearly everything having to do with the conflict in Iraq. Therefore, you no longer can be trusted to make sound judgements with regard to the war in Iraq.

The people of America agree with me; hence, the 'will of the electorate' throwing your bums out of power and putting my bums in power.

Cycloptichorn


People like Hoekstra are though, and that is why they want the investigation into WMD's reopened.

And no, the people of America do not agree with you. Just the people on A2K. No big surprise there.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 10:33 am
McGentrix wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Credible witnesses


Sorry, you're not qualified to judge whether there are credible witnesses or not.

You see, those who have supported the war from day one - such as yourself - have been wrong about nearly everything having to do with the conflict in Iraq. Therefore, you no longer can be trusted to make sound judgements with regard to the war in Iraq.

The people of America agree with me; hence, the 'will of the electorate' throwing your bums out of power and putting my bums in power.

Cycloptichorn


People like Hoekstra are though, and that is why they want the investigation into WMD's reopened.

And no, the people of America do not agree with you. Just the people on A2K. No big surprise there.


Interestingly, the people of America elected those who hold opinions which mirror mine much more than they mirror yours. So it isn't a stretch to say that they agree with me.

Unfortunately for Hoekstra, his group will not be in power for much longer, and while I think you will see plenty of investigations opened - even some about WMD, in fact - I do not think that either you or he will like them very much at all.

Cycloptichron
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 10:39 am
McGentrix wrote:

No one stepped forward with the information that WMD's were moved until Saddam was no longer in the picture. Prior to any invasion, no one knew that Saddam may have moved his existing WMD's. It was a secret, and unlike the US government, Saddam was able to actually keep secret things secret.

Is this really that hard an idea to grasp?


The date on my MSNBC link was January 2005.
There has been nothing that suggests that your thesis, vis a vis "secrets" and the moved WMD, is correct.

Is this really that hard an idea to grasp?

You can argue till you're blue in the face that Genoans in 1480 believed that the earth was flat, or that 16th century Greeks believed the planets orbited the earth, but we know better now than to argue these points....as should you.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 10:40 am
McGentrix wrote:
It was a secret, and unlike the US government, Saddam was able to actually keep secret things secret.


Yeah, it's a secret. Even after Saddam has been sentenced to death the secret is still secret. We still haven't found those "secret" WMDs that McG konws exist. Is this like Bush's secret plan for winning in Iraq that Conrad Burns talked about?
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
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 08:15:00