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

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

"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."

Iraq Survey Group Final Report

The final paragraph of this report.

If WMD existed

ISG has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn possessed WMD stocks in 2003

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.

Credible witnesses

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.

They found no evidence...

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

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

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.

But

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?

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

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.

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?

It was a secret, and unlike the US government, Saddam was able to actually keep secret things secret.