• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Half say "Iraq had WMD's"

Econ101

Well-known member
Saddam was cheating on the UN requirements of destroying his WMDs, that is certainly a fact.

If every country had to follow the UN mandates or be invaded, we would be at perpetual war.

There does not seem to be any NEW or VIABLE WMDs in Saddam's recent ruling past that would have had any strategic value. The only value would have been for terrorism uses.

Bush made his assertions, and much of his "case for war" on what would seem to be new or viable threats from WMDs that had strategic importance. We have not found those yet, or at least this has not been disclosed.

If the Bush military machine allowed such weapons to escape to Iran or Syria, then that could be a strategic mistake for future developments--especially with our troops between the two.
 

BBJ

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Saddam was cheating on the UN requirements of destroying his WMDs, that is certainly a fact.

The only value would have been for terrorism uses.


Now put yourself in President Bush's shoes after 9/11.


What would you have done? (And I am asking this to EVERYONE on this board.)
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
memanpa said:
oh my GOD
you really beleive this crap DIS?
how ignorant are you anyway?
never mind the real people know the answer to that question

hey DIS got a major lead on you and your isp keep posting please!
as of right now there are 14 people using your general area isp

just need a few more posts while i am on line t o have ya!

wanna bet my bots agaisnt yours ???
post please DIS pretty please:)

Here I am, coward. You can't win an argument, so you threaten. Sounds par for your kind.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
BBJ said:
More spin from our little buddy dis. :shock: but I'm sure at this point no one is surprised. :lol:


dis wrote: "No, whether people believe Saddam had WMDs has nothing to do with whether or not he had WMDs." (So does that apply to your belief that he didn't have WMD's?)

Talk about hiding your head in the sand.... :? maybe you should go back and actually read this post....(ignore the talk about polls)...oh and while your at it, reading up on REAL facts, try reading UN resolution 1441. The Bush backers aren't the only ones in this world that believed he had them, but I guess you know more than the rest of us right? Heres a cut and paste for you, from this thread that PROVES SADDAM HAD WMD! I also posted in this thread the definition of a WMD :twisted: for those of you that refuse to believe saddam had them.

Saddam had no WMDs. That's a fact. Bush's own hand picked weapons inspectors said he had no WMDs. You can spin and pretend all you want. One of my first posts on this board was to say that if he had them, he would have used them. Excuses were thrown out then and assurances made that they would be found. Almost four years later, they haven't been found! Because they aren't there. Apparently I do know more than the rest of you because I never believed it. Bush didn't take us into Iraq because Saddam had defied UN resolutions. He took us into Iraq because he said Saddam had WMDs and might give them to terrorists to bring to the US. He had nothing but contempt for the UN at that time. Now he badly wants them in Iraq. Keep spinning, but the facts are well documented.

Heres all the proof YOU need "Respondents were questioned in early July after the release of a Defense Department intelligence report that revealed coalition forces recovered 500 aging chemical weapons containing mustard or sarin gas nerve agents in Iraq."

Where's your link? "Aging chemical weapons". No one has said these old weapons were a danger, certainly not a danger to the masses, even if he had a way to fire them! But keep spinning.

He had WMD's right there, end of discussion. 1441 didn't say he could keep 1 or 50 or just the old ones :wink: he was to get rid of ALL WMD's and he obviously didn't. ONCE AGAIN YOUR WRONG DIS! :cry:

Waiting on your spin to this proof patiently........... :p

Again - Bush didn't take us into Iraq because Saddam ignored the UN resolutions that Bush had nothing but contempt for. So keep spinning. Doesn't change a thing.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
BBJ said:
Econ101 said:
Saddam was cheating on the UN requirements of destroying his WMDs, that is certainly a fact.

The only value would have been for terrorism uses.


Now put yourself in President Bush's shoes after 9/11.


What would you have done? (And I am asking this to EVERYONE on this board.)

Afghanistan was a no brainer. Had to be done and was.

The question of Iraq is another matter.

Iraq was an "elective" war and it seems more information about the analysis was dead wrong and is costing us now. In addition, much of the information was wrong for political purposes, not because of regular govt. incompetence. This incompetence came from the decider and his small group of neocon cheerleaders he put in place. Dissention is good to hear, as it often brings one back to reality instead of incorrect percieved notions.

I do not fault GW for war with Iraq, but I do fault him for the competence of its execution and the misleading information he used to sell the war. Building a consensus(talking about Congress's votes on the war here) on half truths or lies is the best ticket to failure in a democracy. GW doesn't seem to understand that but it will be taught to him whether he likes it or not. Just like Clinton's cheapening of the office of president for personal matters, it comes at the expense of the country. We are paying for it in more ways than one.

Tell me, is the middle east better off today or better off when GW first came into office? Where will we say it is 5 years from now?

The middle east is an intractable problem for the world and we all want it to change for the better. The question is, can we do it by military force?

We will see the answer to that question by the non military (political) movements in the countries of the middle east.
 

BBJ

Well-known member
BBJ said:
More spin from our little buddy dis. :shock: but I'm sure at this point no one is surprised. :lol:


dis wrote: "No, whether people believe Saddam had WMDs has nothing to do with whether or not he had WMDs." (So does that apply to your belief that he didn't have WMD's?)

Talk about hiding your head in the sand.... :? maybe you should go back and actually read this post....(ignore the talk about polls)...oh and while your at it, reading up on REAL facts, try reading UN resolution 1441. The Bush backers aren't the only ones in this world that believed he had them, but I guess you know more than the rest of us right? Heres a cut and paste for you, from this thread that PROVES SADDAM HAD WMD! I also posted in this thread the definition of a WMD :twisted: for those of you that refuse to believe saddam had them.

Heres all the proof YOU need "Respondents were questioned in early July after the release of a Defense Department intelligence report that revealed coalition forces recovered 500 aging chemical weapons containing mustard or sarin gas nerve agents in Iraq."

He had WMD's right there, end of discussion. 1441 didn't say he could keep 1 or 50 or just the old ones :wink: he was to get rid of ALL WMD's and he obviously didn't. ONCE AGAIN YOUR WRONG DIS! :cry:

Waiting on your spin to this proof patiently........... :p



Still just hanging around waiting to see how dis spins this one. :cry: :cry2: :cry:
 

BBJ

Well-known member
BBJ said:
BBJ said:
More spin from our little buddy dis. :shock: but I'm sure at this point no one is surprised. :lol:


dis wrote: "No, whether people believe Saddam had WMDs has nothing to do with whether or not he had WMDs." (So does that apply to your belief that he didn't have WMD's?)

Talk about hiding your head in the sand.... :? maybe you should go back and actually read this post....(ignore the talk about polls)...oh and while your at it, reading up on REAL facts, try reading UN resolution 1441. The Bush backers aren't the only ones in this world that believed he had them, but I guess you know more than the rest of us right? Heres a cut and paste for you, from this thread that PROVES SADDAM HAD WMD! I also posted in this thread the definition of a WMD :twisted: for those of you that refuse to believe saddam had them.

Heres all the proof YOU need "Respondents were questioned in early July after the release of a Defense Department intelligence report that revealed coalition forces recovered 500 aging chemical weapons containing mustard or sarin gas nerve agents in Iraq."

He had WMD's right there, end of discussion. 1441 didn't say he could keep 1 or 50 or just the old ones :wink: he was to get rid of ALL WMD's and he obviously didn't. ONCE AGAIN YOUR WRONG DIS! :cry:

Waiting on your spin to this proof patiently........... :p



Still just hanging around waiting to see how dis spins this one. :cry: :cry2: :cry:


:arrow: Well I've noticed dis that you are obviously dodging this one :wink: but hey given the position you're in I can't say that I blame you. :) I mean after all, the other day you admitted this war was not about W wanting to get saddam :clap: and now that there were and probably still are WMD's in Iraq (and there's proof) you must be looking for another angle. :wink: Can't wait to see where the spin will take us.

Don't know how much more I can take....... :oops: the suspense is killing me, but I guess I'll just have to let you regroup and get your ducks in a row. :liar:


Or should your SILENCE be taken as a GAME OVER? :wink: :lol:
 

memanpa

Well-known member
DIS is waiting for her bots at L.I.F.D to come up with cut and paste rebuttals!

it is beyound her capability to think with out them!

DIS if there were no WMD why did we find them?


Saddam had no WMDs. That's a fact. Bush's own hand picked weapons inspectors said he had no WMDs. You can spin and pretend all you want. One of my first posts on this board was to say that if he had them, he would have used them. Excuses were thrown out then and assurances made that they would be found. Almost four years later, they haven't been found! Because they aren't there. Apparently I do know more than the rest of you because I never believed it. Bush didn't take us into Iraq because Saddam had defied UN resolutions. He took us into Iraq because he said Saddam had WMDs and might give them to terrorists to bring to the US. He had nothing but contempt for the UN at that time. Now he badly wants them in Iraq. Keep spinning, but the facts are well documented.

the FACT is WE found some! DIS pute that!!!
facts are FACTS wmd were found
come mis cut and paste open mouth insert foot again!

Bush may have contempt for the UN but that is nothing compared to what i have for you.cut paste spin tell your bosses they need to give you better DIS infomation
 

Latest posts

Top