Tweet
Originally posted by Ned
Blackcat, even the UN said there were WMDs based on their inspections that were stopped in 1998.
Blackcat, even the UN said there were WMDs based on their inspections that were stopped in 1998.
-
That might be, but not what I recall. Nevertheless, I feel fine with the argument that there might be WMD's as an argument.With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg -
now youre just making **** up.Blackcat, even the UN said there were WMDs based on their inspections that were stopped in 1998."Everything for the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State" - Benito MussoliniComment
-
I'm just as suspicious as you about Ned's claim, but even if he should happen to be right, then it doesn't matter. The claim has never been that Saddam HAD WMD's, just that he MIGHT have them. and that is all the reason needed.Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
now youre just making **** up.
That is why the claim that it is all based upon a lie is so redicolous. Actually, it's the lie claim that is a lie.With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven WeinbergComment
-
the claim was the saddam was an imminent threat to the US."Everything for the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State" - Benito MussoliniComment
-
And where is the lie in this ?Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
the claim was the saddam was an imminent threat to the US.With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven WeinbergComment
-
he wasnt. he had no wmd, no way to deliver it, no ties with al qaeda, and no army that could endanger america."Everything for the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State" - Benito MussoliniComment
-
Yeah but now Saddam is gone, isn't that worth anything these days?Comment
-
The president didn't use those words. He said that Saddam was a grave and growing danger, etc. Bush was told that Saddam had Anthrax and nerve gase, was working on long range missles, and also was working on Nukes. There is nothing in this that is an imminent threat -- except if he gave the bio weapons to terrorists.Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
the claim was the saddam was an imminent threat to the US.
However, he was said by the Brits to be able to launch a strike within hours of his giving the orders. I don't recall Bush every saying that, however.
As to the UN in 1998, the UN had listed stockpiles of Antrax, mustard gas, nerve gas and their ingredients that they had not verified were destroyed. If Saddam did destroy them or they were destroyed by US bombs and missles, Saddam provided no documentation that was verifiable in any way that the stockpiles were destroyed.http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=enComment
-
You didn't read any of my arguments, did you?Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
he wasnt. he had no wmd, no way to deliver it, no ties with al qaeda, and no army that could endanger america.
You're just another one who thinks that problems like this can be reduced and addressed in one-liners.
Simplistic one-liners like: "Bush if full of **** there are no WMD and everyone who says so is a liar"
How simplistic can ones view be.
If you take yourself seriously, address the arguments we give instead of this dumb yelling and shouting silly lines with two fingers in your ears.Formerly known as "CyberShy"
Carpe Diem tamen Memento MoriComment
-
That's not true. Both the Hans Blix and Reese publicly and emfatically said they found no evidience of WMD in Iraq. Republicans demonized them for it too. Some how for weapons inspectors to do their job and release a report about the facts they found was enough for Faux News and Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the right wingers in the media to attack the UN and to attack the men who headed the weapons inspection teams.Originally posted by Ned
Blackcat, even the UN said there were WMDs based on their inspections that were stopped in 1998.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
-
The claim was that Saddam was hording WMD and that he would either use them on western states (Originally posted by BlackCat
And where is the lie in this ?
) or that he would give those WMD's to Al Qaeda who wanted Saddam dead. The other lie is Bush & Fuax News kept telling people that Saddam, not Al Qaeda, was behind 9/11. That was a complete 100% lie that never had anything to do with reality.
Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
-
When did Bush claim that Sadam was behind 9/11?
I've never read or seen that. It has been investigated, which is a normal thing to do. I've never seen anybody claim this.Formerly known as "CyberShy"
Carpe Diem tamen Memento MoriComment
-
They had a whole spin machine spreading that lie. If you don't believe me then ask some of the other Americans.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
-
I don't remember hearing Bush ever say the Sadam was behind 9/11... or anybody else from the government saying it either...Keep on Civin'
RIP rah, Tony Bogey & Baron OComment
-
I don't remember hearing Bush ever say the Sadam was behind 9/11... or anybody else from the government saying it either...
I heard them imply it numerous times. Claiming he had links with Al Qaeda they did do.
Plausible deniability.Only feebs vote.Comment
Comment