Dixie finally admits Saddam did not have WMD when we invaded!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
funkysoulbrutha
Junior Member
just like it was yesterday I remember the ole stories of truck convoys full of WMD heading into Syria..... ahhh...... the good ole dayz......
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Jarhead, do you have something inside you head that makes you have to tell a lie everyday? It must be that, because you seem to find something daily to lie about. Even when it's just an outright mistruth and misrepresentation of plain English, you just can't help yourself... you have to tell a lie. Maybe that is why you think Bush lied? Maybe he's like you, and just can't fucking manage to make it through the day, without telling some kind of whopper?
Stop acting like a 10-year old, and posting threads to try and get a dig in on me. I ain't playing! You are a fucking retard and moron who can't make a point, and this kind of shit is really pathetic. You're pissed off because you whined around behind me for two days, like a kid in a shitty diaper, demanding I prove that Clinton violated the rights of Paula Jones, and I schooled you in the law, and made you look like a complete idiot. I've been making idiots out of pinheads here for years, so I am quite used to the juvenile tirades in response, but I don't put up with people just outright telling lies on me.
Stop acting like a 10-year old, and posting threads to try and get a dig in on me. I ain't playing! You are a fucking retard and moron who can't make a point, and this kind of shit is really pathetic. You're pissed off because you whined around behind me for two days, like a kid in a shitty diaper, demanding I prove that Clinton violated the rights of Paula Jones, and I schooled you in the law, and made you look like a complete idiot. I've been making idiots out of pinheads here for years, so I am quite used to the juvenile tirades in response, but I don't put up with people just outright telling lies on me.
I was wrong bout the Clintion thing and admited it AND I appologised!
You were wrong about Saddam having WMD, argued with me for about 10 pagesm an still are trying to spin itand deny it!
HA! Your king has no cloaths!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
You were wrong about Saddam having WMD, argued with me for about 10 pagesm an still are trying to spin itand deny it!
How the fuck can I be "WRONG" about something I don't know, and neither do you? I don't know whether he had WMD's when we invaded or not! He might have! He might not have! I don't fucking know, have no way of knowing, couldn't possibly know, and neither can you! We can speculate, we can have opinions, we can draw conclusions from other people's opinions, but there is no way for either of us to be absolutely certain.
You asked me a question, and I gave you a straight up honest answer, and now you want to spin what I said into something I never said. It appears that Saddam didn't have WMD's... just like it appears you never made it past 3rd grade! I don't know this to be a fact, I am not saying this is the case, I am telling you in every way known to man, I DON'T FRIKIN KNOW!
At least I provided a cite to your statement... how did I lie?
What part of this is hard for you to comprehend... the DON'T or the KNOW? Why do you run off and post a thread with a complete lie and fabrication, and pretend I said something I never said? I never admitted Saddam didn't have WMD's when we invaded, yet that sure as hell is what the thread title says. Assuming YOU wrote the thread title, you must be a liar!
How the fuck can I be "WRONG" about something I don't know, and neither do you? I don't know whether he had WMD's when we invaded or not! He might have! He might not have! I don't fucking know, have no way of knowing, couldn't possibly know, and neither can you! We can speculate, we can have opinions, we can draw conclusions from other people's opinions, but there is no way for either of us to be absolutely certain.
You asked me a question, and I gave you a straight up honest answer, and now you want to spin what I said into something I never said. It appears that Saddam didn't have WMD's... just like it appears you never made it past 3rd grade! I don't know this to be a fact, I am not saying this is the case, I am telling you in every way known to man, I DON'T FRIKIN KNOW!
At least I provided a cite to your statement... how did I lie?
What part of this is hard for you to comprehend... the DON'T or the KNOW? Why do you run off and post a thread with a complete lie and fabrication, and pretend I said something I never said? I never admitted Saddam didn't have WMD's when we invaded, yet that sure as hell is what the thread title says. Assuming YOU wrote the thread title, you must be a liar!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
About a month or two ago, you were absolutly sure!
I am absolutely sure Saddam had WMD's at one time, I am absolutely sure the 500 Sarin bombs found in Iraq, are WMD's, I am absolutely sure the intellignce from around the globe, indicated he had an active WMD program and WMD's. I am absolutely sure Saddam defied 17 UN resolutions, and failed to disclose information about his WMD programs. And I am absolutely sure, he had at least 14 months to construct any kind of illusion he wanted to. These are the things I am absolutely sure about, there is no way for you or I to be absolutely sure about whether Saddam had WMD's at the time of invasion, or any other time.
I am absolutely sure Saddam had WMD's at one time, I am absolutely sure the 500 Sarin bombs found in Iraq, are WMD's, I am absolutely sure the intellignce from around the globe, indicated he had an active WMD program and WMD's. I am absolutely sure Saddam defied 17 UN resolutions, and failed to disclose information about his WMD programs. And I am absolutely sure, he had at least 14 months to construct any kind of illusion he wanted to. These are the things I am absolutely sure about, there is no way for you or I to be absolutely sure about whether Saddam had WMD's at the time of invasion, or any other time.
maineman
Banned
no...the Sarin bombs WERE WMD's....
kinda like having a bucket of sawdust poured on your head is not the same as being clubbed with a baseball bat.
Sarin that is degraded and no longer weapons grade cannot be a weapon of mass destruction. Weapons of mass destruction have to be able to be capable of causing mass destruction.... hence the name.
kinda like having a bucket of sawdust poured on your head is not the same as being clubbed with a baseball bat.
Sarin that is degraded and no longer weapons grade cannot be a weapon of mass destruction. Weapons of mass destruction have to be able to be capable of causing mass destruction.... hence the name.
Okay this is simple. If those 500 Sarin munitions found burried in the Dessart are WMD, how does it appear that Iraq did not have WMD at the time we invaded?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Sarin that is degraded and no longer weapons grade cannot be a weapon of mass destruction.
If the Sarin was degraded and no longer weapons grade when the bombs were constructed, then they were not WMD's. Unless that is the case, the bombs were constructed as WMD's, and are considered WMD's until they are destroyed, when they will then be considered, destroyed WMD's.
I love this post-factual logic you are applying... does that mean the commercial airliners that crashed into buildings on 9/11, weren't really commercial airliners? I mean, they didn't depart and arrive as normal commercial flights, they were used as missiles, so maybe they weren't really even airplanes. And that wonderful Bill Clinton, since he was impeached, he was never the president! Couldn't have been, he was impeached! I like this new way of looking at things, I am going to start looking at everything this way! Nothing is what it originally was intended to be, it's merely whatever the hell it winds up being in the end! For instance, you were never an honorable naval veteran, you are a washed-up blowhard asshole, and you've never been anything more!
If the Sarin was degraded and no longer weapons grade when the bombs were constructed, then they were not WMD's. Unless that is the case, the bombs were constructed as WMD's, and are considered WMD's until they are destroyed, when they will then be considered, destroyed WMD's.
I love this post-factual logic you are applying... does that mean the commercial airliners that crashed into buildings on 9/11, weren't really commercial airliners? I mean, they didn't depart and arrive as normal commercial flights, they were used as missiles, so maybe they weren't really even airplanes. And that wonderful Bill Clinton, since he was impeached, he was never the president! Couldn't have been, he was impeached! I like this new way of looking at things, I am going to start looking at everything this way! Nothing is what it originally was intended to be, it's merely whatever the hell it winds up being in the end! For instance, you were never an honorable naval veteran, you are a washed-up blowhard asshole, and you've never been anything more!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Okay this is simple. If those 500 Sarin munitions found burried in the Dessart are WMD, how does it appear that Iraq did not have WMD at the time we invaded?
When I made the statement you are so hung up on, I expalined it. The 500 Sarin bombs ARE indeed WMD's... they weren't NEW WMD's. It appears Saddam didn't have stockpiles of NEW WMD's. There! Is that better?
When I made the statement you are so hung up on, I expalined it. The 500 Sarin bombs ARE indeed WMD's... they weren't NEW WMD's. It appears Saddam didn't have stockpiles of NEW WMD's. There! Is that better?
maineman
Banned
baseball bats or buckets of sawdust?
no one has EVER argued that Saddam NEVER possessed WMD's.... only that he didn't have any that could hurt US when Dubya took us to war and claimed that he had NO DOUBT that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMD's that could hurt us. The Sarin was OLD... it was no longer capable of producing mass destruction. It was no reason to go to war.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
baseball bats or buckets of sawdust?
26-year Naval Veteran, or washed-up dirty old man on the Internet?
....I see your point!
only that he didn't have any that could hurt US when Dubya took us to war and claimed that he had NO DOUBT
We didn't know what he had, and still don't know, what part of that do you fail to understand? So far, I have not seen the definitive proof that there were no WMD's in Iraq when Bush gave the Axis of Evil speech. In fact, I don't think it can be proven, or disproved. That is what it means when we "don't know" something. Bush didn't claim there was absolute certainty, that was an impossible claim, as we have already established. He did claim that our intelligence had no doubt, and the director of intelligence did tell him it was a "slam dunk"... pretty damn close to "no doubt" ...ask Michael Jordan!
Presidents really do not have anyone else to listen to, they don't own crystal balls, they don't all have magical mind powers like John Edwards, they have a CIA, and that is who tells them what's going on.
We've seen several post-war reports, and they all say the same thing... they can't conclude anything, they can't find the evidence to conclude anything, and it appears he had no new stockpiles of WMD's when we invaded. This doesn't mean he didn't... that would be a "conclusion" and an absolute certainty that can't exist here... remember? Of course, for partisan hack pinheads, it doesn't matter that it defies logic, we've demonstrated that already. The point is, no one has concluded that Saddam didn't have any WMD's when we invaded, just as no one has concluded he did! The evidence is inconclusive, it doesn't appear that he did, but we simply do not know, and may never know, for absolute certain. We don't know if he had WMD's when Bush gave his Axis speech either, we have to rely on intelligence reports, and form an opinion. As great as an opinion is, it has nothing to do with absolute certainty, they are not compatible.
If the United States had ever, at any time, been absolutely certain of what Saddam had, and where it was, AS you are claiming... there would have been no need to invade. We have the technological arsenal to wipe out anything, anywhere, anytime... just punch in some coordinates... *boom* end of problem. The very nature of the threat posed by Saddam, was the uncertainty, the not knowing what he was up to, the inability to trust him, because he never kept his word, and not knowing what was going on with regard to his associations with terrorists, and other terror states, and not to be forgotten, his clandestine nuclear ambitions.
Iraq is a literal maze of underground tunnels and bunkers... seriously... there are hundreds of miles in Iraq, underground, some dating back to before Christ. For all we knew at the time, Saddam was in one of those bunkers, cooking up a nuke or some bio/radioactive dirty bomb! We simply didn't know, that WAS the whole urgency of the issue. Bush decided, rather than wait around and find out for absolute certain the hard and ugly way, it was best to confront it, and act, and he did. But there was never absolute certainty, it was impossible for it to exist, and if it had existed, it wouldn't have required invasion.
The Sarin was OLD... it was no longer capable of producing mass destruction. It was no reason to go to war.
Oh, but it WAS the reason, you just don't understand how. You are thinking in terms of the actual physical weapon itself, and the potential threat it posed to American citizens in the United States. I agree, it was relatively harmless and useless as a WMD when we found it. This brings us to the shelf-life of Sarin bombs... not very long... about the length of time it takes a dysfunctional administration to slobber all over the UN and pretend to be "inspecting" with Hans and the Keystone Cops, let them vote and veto another two or three resolutions they don't intend to enforce, convince enough jelly-kneed liberals to vote for authorization of force, and move the troops into place for an all-out invasion. By the time you get through all of this, any weapons he had, are degraded beyond use. Unless you want to explain why Saddam would be producing Sarin bombs while Hans was inspecting, it's impossible for Saddam to have anything BUT degraded Sarin bombs.
The issue was never, the potency of the WMD's, it was the existence of them, and the uncertainty of what else there might be. These 500 Sarin Bombs? They were supposedly destroyed by Saddam... that was his story to Hans and the Boys... he destroyed them... well, sorry to break it to you Maine, I know he's your hero, but... he lied! They are not destroyed at all, they were found. Yes, they are degraded, they would be degraded after all this time, it's to be expected. They are still WMD's, and they are part of the ones he was supposed to have destroyed, and lied about.
And let's clear up something else, this war was not "about the WMD's" as you put it... you can say that all you like, it's just factually inaccurate. There were a host of reasons cited in the Authorization of Force, not just the WMD's.
26-year Naval Veteran, or washed-up dirty old man on the Internet?
....I see your point!
only that he didn't have any that could hurt US when Dubya took us to war and claimed that he had NO DOUBT
We didn't know what he had, and still don't know, what part of that do you fail to understand? So far, I have not seen the definitive proof that there were no WMD's in Iraq when Bush gave the Axis of Evil speech. In fact, I don't think it can be proven, or disproved. That is what it means when we "don't know" something. Bush didn't claim there was absolute certainty, that was an impossible claim, as we have already established. He did claim that our intelligence had no doubt, and the director of intelligence did tell him it was a "slam dunk"... pretty damn close to "no doubt" ...ask Michael Jordan!
Presidents really do not have anyone else to listen to, they don't own crystal balls, they don't all have magical mind powers like John Edwards, they have a CIA, and that is who tells them what's going on.
We've seen several post-war reports, and they all say the same thing... they can't conclude anything, they can't find the evidence to conclude anything, and it appears he had no new stockpiles of WMD's when we invaded. This doesn't mean he didn't... that would be a "conclusion" and an absolute certainty that can't exist here... remember? Of course, for partisan hack pinheads, it doesn't matter that it defies logic, we've demonstrated that already. The point is, no one has concluded that Saddam didn't have any WMD's when we invaded, just as no one has concluded he did! The evidence is inconclusive, it doesn't appear that he did, but we simply do not know, and may never know, for absolute certain. We don't know if he had WMD's when Bush gave his Axis speech either, we have to rely on intelligence reports, and form an opinion. As great as an opinion is, it has nothing to do with absolute certainty, they are not compatible.
If the United States had ever, at any time, been absolutely certain of what Saddam had, and where it was, AS you are claiming... there would have been no need to invade. We have the technological arsenal to wipe out anything, anywhere, anytime... just punch in some coordinates... *boom* end of problem. The very nature of the threat posed by Saddam, was the uncertainty, the not knowing what he was up to, the inability to trust him, because he never kept his word, and not knowing what was going on with regard to his associations with terrorists, and other terror states, and not to be forgotten, his clandestine nuclear ambitions.
Iraq is a literal maze of underground tunnels and bunkers... seriously... there are hundreds of miles in Iraq, underground, some dating back to before Christ. For all we knew at the time, Saddam was in one of those bunkers, cooking up a nuke or some bio/radioactive dirty bomb! We simply didn't know, that WAS the whole urgency of the issue. Bush decided, rather than wait around and find out for absolute certain the hard and ugly way, it was best to confront it, and act, and he did. But there was never absolute certainty, it was impossible for it to exist, and if it had existed, it wouldn't have required invasion.
The Sarin was OLD... it was no longer capable of producing mass destruction. It was no reason to go to war.
Oh, but it WAS the reason, you just don't understand how. You are thinking in terms of the actual physical weapon itself, and the potential threat it posed to American citizens in the United States. I agree, it was relatively harmless and useless as a WMD when we found it. This brings us to the shelf-life of Sarin bombs... not very long... about the length of time it takes a dysfunctional administration to slobber all over the UN and pretend to be "inspecting" with Hans and the Keystone Cops, let them vote and veto another two or three resolutions they don't intend to enforce, convince enough jelly-kneed liberals to vote for authorization of force, and move the troops into place for an all-out invasion. By the time you get through all of this, any weapons he had, are degraded beyond use. Unless you want to explain why Saddam would be producing Sarin bombs while Hans was inspecting, it's impossible for Saddam to have anything BUT degraded Sarin bombs.
The issue was never, the potency of the WMD's, it was the existence of them, and the uncertainty of what else there might be. These 500 Sarin Bombs? They were supposedly destroyed by Saddam... that was his story to Hans and the Boys... he destroyed them... well, sorry to break it to you Maine, I know he's your hero, but... he lied! They are not destroyed at all, they were found. Yes, they are degraded, they would be degraded after all this time, it's to be expected. They are still WMD's, and they are part of the ones he was supposed to have destroyed, and lied about.
And let's clear up something else, this war was not "about the WMD's" as you put it... you can say that all you like, it's just factually inaccurate. There were a host of reasons cited in the Authorization of Force, not just the WMD's.
maineman
Banned
the ability of supposed weapons of mass destruction to actually cause massive destruction was never at issue? Never a cause for concern? Really?
Well, obviously not with you...if George Bush had said that we were going to invade Mongolia because too much yak butter was evil, you'd have gone along with your loverboy in blue jeans and still be defending his every move to this day, no matter how badly it had turned out. That's why you are a hack, Dixie. For much the same reason as you can decry Clinton's lack of morals as being important, and then turn around and tout the candidacy of Newt. You don't have a moral compass.... you have an amoral windsock.
Well, obviously not with you...if George Bush had said that we were going to invade Mongolia because too much yak butter was evil, you'd have gone along with your loverboy in blue jeans and still be defending his every move to this day, no matter how badly it had turned out. That's why you are a hack, Dixie. For much the same reason as you can decry Clinton's lack of morals as being important, and then turn around and tout the candidacy of Newt. You don't have a moral compass.... you have an amoral windsock.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
the ability of supposed weapons of mass destruction to actually cause massive destruction was never at issue? Never a cause for concern? Really?
The ability of Saddam Hussein, to launch a WMD attack on US soil, was never an issue or concern. Correct! And to restate this point, IF we had known precisely what he had and where it was, we wouldn't have needed to invade.
The ability of Saddam Hussein, to launch a WMD attack on US soil, was never an issue or concern. Correct! And to restate this point, IF we had known precisely what he had and where it was, we wouldn't have needed to invade.