Iraq now longer than ww2

Sir Evil said:
It's a serious point that became overshadowed by the wmd questions!
Click to expand...

This is true, and I fault Bush (amazingly enough) for this. If there was any "error" or "mistake" by this administration, it was in investing so much stock and justification for the war, in WMD's. Before the war, I personally chronicled over 22 assorted connections between alQaeda (including Zarqawi) and the Saddam regime, and none of them have ever been refuted or proven inaccurate. If any reason were needed besides the general misconduct and defiance of Saddam, it should have been his connection to terrorism.

WMD stockpiles were never an issue, and were, in fact, non-starters, because chem/bio shelf-life would render any such stockpiles useless in a matter of a few months. It was the technology and ability to produce these weapons on a large scale, and the means in which to produce them on short notice, which was the potential real "threat" of falling into the hands of the terrorists.
 
uscitizen said:
Yep and some of that oil for food money came from US oilmen :)
And what about the billions unaccounted for in the reconstruction funds.
Wake up dixie and see reality.
Click to expand...


Well, the point you made had nothing to do with where the money came from, or reconstruction contracts, dufuss! You sarcasticly popped off something about Saddam doing wunderfully (sic) during those 12 years, to which I replied, forthwith. Why do you just want to change topics in the middle of an argument? Perhaps it's because you know you have no point?
 
Au contrare Dixie, the shelf life on MX and mustard gas is many years. I am not sure on all of the WMD's though.
We have several stockpiles of old boichem WMD's in the USA and destroying the stockpiles is very tricky and they are very seriously monitored. I try and keep up with this as I live less than 50 air miles from one such storage depot. and know a couple of contractors that work there.
 
The UN inspectors did there job.

Then why do you keep hearing pinheads clamor about how they weren't allowed to do their job? Either they DID or they DIDN'T! Make up your mind!

There were no more WMD in iraq.

This has been proven false, at least 500 Sarin bombs were found, according to recently declassified documents.

95% destruction of chem/bio weapons was empirically verified.

No, it wasn't, and you can offer nothing to support this claim.

It was proven there was no nuke program.

Again, no it wasn't proven, and you can't support the claim. It's rhetoric, it sounds good to spew it, and it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy to cling to it, but honestly... this is just another false statement.
 
Dixie said:
The UN inspectors did there job.

Then why do you keep hearing pinheads clamor about how they weren't allowed to do their job? Either they DID or they DIDN'T! Make up your mind!

There were no more WMD in iraq.

This has been proven false, at least 500 Sarin bombs were found, according to recently declassified documents.

95% destruction of chem/bio weapons was empirically verified.

No, it wasn't, and you can offer nothing to support this claim.

It was proven there was no nuke program.

Again, no it wasn't proven, and you can't support the claim. It's rhetoric, it sounds good to spew it, and it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy to cling to it, but honestly... this is just another false statement.
Click to expand...


Dixie - mudflap is not patisan, or did you already know that?
 
Dixie said:
The UN inspectors did there job.

Then why do you keep hearing pinheads clamor about how they weren't allowed to do their job? Either they DID or they DIDN'T! Make up your mind!

There were no more WMD in iraq.

This has been proven false, at least 500 Sarin bombs were found, according to recently declassified documents.

95% destruction of chem/bio weapons was empirically verified.

No, it wasn't, and you can offer nothing to support this claim.

It was proven there was no nuke program.

Again, no it wasn't proven, and you can't support the claim. It's rhetoric, it sounds good to spew it, and it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy to cling to it, but honestly... this is just another false statement.
Click to expand...

1) Where's the nuke program?

2) Where's the WMD?

3) The shells that WERE found, were left over for the 1980s and abandoned on the field of battle. The were inert, as far as being used as WMD. Bush's own inspector David Kay said they were about as harmful as the chemicals under your kitchen sink.

Please tell me you have some better reasons to spend half a trillion taxpayer dollars, and to slaughter thousands of american soldiers.
 
uscitizen said:
Oh I see you do understand the concept of sarcasm dixie, good for you :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, idiots shouldn't use sarcasm, it's confusing to the rest of us non-retarded people! We can't tell when you are being sarcastic or serious! Given the way Liberals spin, you could conceivably take opposite positions on a given subject in the same thread, and sarcasm can quickly be mistaken for valid opinion which has simply changed. You should try to avoid sarcasm, and stick to short basic sentences, preferably without big words that you can't spell. This way, you won't be so confounding to the rest of us. Thanks in advance!
:cof1:
 
Cypress said:
1) Where's the nuke program?

2) Where's the WMD?

3) The shells that WERE found, were left over for the 1980s and abandoned on the field of battle. The were inert, as far as being used as WMD. Bush's own inspector David Kay said they were about as harmful as the chemicals under your kitchen sink.

Please tell me you have some better reasons to spend half a trillion taxpayer dollars, and to slaughter thousands of american soldiers.
Click to expand...

It's totally a money issue for mudflap! I think the point dixie made was for you to present the unrefutable evidence that the nuke/wmds did'nt exist, and the question is as fair as it can get. Rightfully so it leans more to the fact they were'nt there but that is all there is, simple rhetoric.

sure there were plenty of things left over from the 80's, it's a valid fact to support the neverending issue with iraq!

what a total tool!
 
Cypress said:
1) Where's the nuke program?

2) Where's the WMD?

3) The shells that WERE found, were left over for the 1980s and abandoned on the field of battle. The were inert, as far as being used as WMD. Bush's own inspector David Kay said they were about as harmful as the chemicals under your kitchen sink.

Please tell me you have some better reasons to spend half a trillion taxpayer dollars, and to slaughter thousands of american soldiers.
Click to expand...

The lack of evidence to prove the existence of something, well after the fact, is not "empirical evidence" that it never existed, sorry. It defies even the most rudimentary concepts of logic to conclude this or make determinations on this basis. If you want to "empirically prove" something, you have to offer... well... something "empirical" to prove it. If you have no such proof that all the WMD's were destroyed or there was no nuke program, you can't claim it was "empirically proven."

The age and potency were not discussed in your false claim, that no WMD's were found in Iraq. You might say that no potent and new WMD's were found, that would be an accurate statement, as far as we know in the general public, but that wasn't what you stated. I am merely keeping the discussion honest.
 
Dixie said:
Yeah, idiots shouldn't use sarcasm, it's confusing to the rest of us non-retarded people! We can't tell when you are being sarcastic or serious! Given the way Liberals spin, you could conceivably take opposite positions on a given subject in the same thread, and sarcasm can quickly be mistaken for valid opinion which has simply changed. You should try to avoid sarcasm, and stick to short basic sentences, preferably without big words that you can't spell. This way, you won't be so confounding to the rest of us. Thanks in advance!
:cof1:
Click to expand...
As usual great stuff dixie. I do think it is more important to understand something thant to porperly spell it.
My daddy always said not to argue with rocks or alligatters.
One is futile and the other one will eat your ass off :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top