the proof Bush team Knew Iraq had no weapons in 2002
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Finally! Dam, just a couple months ago we argued about this for about 10 pages... Now you just casually admit it!
Wow!
Casually admit what? That I DON'T KNOW?
Wow!
Casually admit what? That I DON'T KNOW?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Well Jarhead, Saddam DID have WMD's! That is a completely different question from the one you are asking; 'Did he have them at the time of the invasion?' We know Saddam had them at one time, the UN tagged them and he declared them... they did indeed exist. What happened to those WMD's, we don't know, and have never been given any explanation for their disappearance, other than Saddam's unfounded claims he destroyed them. We know Saddam had WMD's in the 80's, he gassed to death his own people with them, they did indeed exist. There have been over 500 Sarin bombs discovered in Iraq, these are classified as WMD's by the CWC and UN, contrary to your beliefs. These were WMD's we already knew he had, and they did exist. They were not new WMD's he had recently made, which we thought we might find.
Now... if you REALLY want to ask me a leading question, why not ask me... Did Saddam have WMD's that we found, which were newly made during the 14-months after the president fingered him as part of the Axis of Evil and insisted on his disarming? The answer is, apparently not. Then again, who would be that stupid? If you went to a known drug dealer, 14 months in advance, and said... in 14 months, we are going to come search your entire house for drugs... What do you suppose the odds are, we would find anything in the house? If we did this, and found nothing, would it mean the drug dealer never had drugs in his house? Would it mean he couldn't have taken them to another place, or flushed them down the toilet? Of course there would be all sorts of potential scenarios and conclusions one could make, but to insist the drug dealer never had any drugs in his house because you didn't find evidence 14 months after the fact, well, that is just devoid of common sense.
Here's something else for your common sense to munch on... The Chem/Bio Scientists. There were about 1,000 chemical and biological weapons scientists on Saddam's payroll. Now, maybe they were all working on how to clone Saddam, maybe they were just doing stem-cell research on how to cure cancer... but I doubt it. These people are highly paid specialists who do one thing, figure out how to make chemical and biological agents into WMD's. If Saddam had no interests in WMD's, why did he need to retain these 1,000 scientists on the payroll? Do you have any kind of a logical answer for that? I don't, I can't even create one! There is no reason for Saddam to pay these people millions of dollars over decades, for no apparent reason, and no benefit to himself.
From almost the very beginning, I have said... this war is not about stockpiles of WMD's. The very shelf-life of most WMD's, contradict the notion of "stockpiles"... why would you need to have stockpiles of rapidly deteriorating weapons? The WMD issue is a non-physical one, it's the technology and refinement of the process to produce them, it is the purity of the precursor agents, it is the binary experiments in the labs, which would produce weapons with unlimited shelf life... those are the "threats" Saddam posed, with regard to WMD's. If you go back and research it, you will find that in the late 80's and early 90's, Saddam's chemical and biological weapons programs and scientists, were the best in the world. They pioneered the 'binary process' and concluded it was possible to make a WMD with unlimited shelf life, and enormous potential for destruction. This 'know how' and understanding of chemical and biological weaponry, is what the issue was, not some mythical warehouse full of WMD's.
Edit: *unlimited shelf life- should read- greatlty-extended shelf life.
There is no such thing as a weapon with 'unlimited shelf life'.
Now... if you REALLY want to ask me a leading question, why not ask me... Did Saddam have WMD's that we found, which were newly made during the 14-months after the president fingered him as part of the Axis of Evil and insisted on his disarming? The answer is, apparently not. Then again, who would be that stupid? If you went to a known drug dealer, 14 months in advance, and said... in 14 months, we are going to come search your entire house for drugs... What do you suppose the odds are, we would find anything in the house? If we did this, and found nothing, would it mean the drug dealer never had drugs in his house? Would it mean he couldn't have taken them to another place, or flushed them down the toilet? Of course there would be all sorts of potential scenarios and conclusions one could make, but to insist the drug dealer never had any drugs in his house because you didn't find evidence 14 months after the fact, well, that is just devoid of common sense.
Here's something else for your common sense to munch on... The Chem/Bio Scientists. There were about 1,000 chemical and biological weapons scientists on Saddam's payroll. Now, maybe they were all working on how to clone Saddam, maybe they were just doing stem-cell research on how to cure cancer... but I doubt it. These people are highly paid specialists who do one thing, figure out how to make chemical and biological agents into WMD's. If Saddam had no interests in WMD's, why did he need to retain these 1,000 scientists on the payroll? Do you have any kind of a logical answer for that? I don't, I can't even create one! There is no reason for Saddam to pay these people millions of dollars over decades, for no apparent reason, and no benefit to himself.
From almost the very beginning, I have said... this war is not about stockpiles of WMD's. The very shelf-life of most WMD's, contradict the notion of "stockpiles"... why would you need to have stockpiles of rapidly deteriorating weapons? The WMD issue is a non-physical one, it's the technology and refinement of the process to produce them, it is the purity of the precursor agents, it is the binary experiments in the labs, which would produce weapons with unlimited shelf life... those are the "threats" Saddam posed, with regard to WMD's. If you go back and research it, you will find that in the late 80's and early 90's, Saddam's chemical and biological weapons programs and scientists, were the best in the world. They pioneered the 'binary process' and concluded it was possible to make a WMD with unlimited shelf life, and enormous potential for destruction. This 'know how' and understanding of chemical and biological weaponry, is what the issue was, not some mythical warehouse full of WMD's.
Edit: *unlimited shelf life- should read- greatlty-extended shelf life.
There is no such thing as a weapon with 'unlimited shelf life'.
Last edited:
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Jarhead, you seem to be having a problem with English, let me clear this up. If I see David Copperfield make a 747 disappear, I might say... IT APPEARS, HE MADE IT VANISH! ...That does not mean, I think David Copperfield defied the laws of physics and actually made the 747 disappear.
It certainly appears that Saddam had no WMD's at the time we invaded. There are any number of reasons for this, not the least of which, could be a deliberate illusion constructed by Saddam. I did not say that Saddam had no WMD's when we invaded, I have no way of being certain of this, and neither do you or any of your various post-invasion inspection reports.
So, do we have a clear understanding of what I said now? I DON'T KNOW... doesn't mean that I KNOW. In fact, they are completely opposite!
It certainly appears that Saddam had no WMD's at the time we invaded. There are any number of reasons for this, not the least of which, could be a deliberate illusion constructed by Saddam. I did not say that Saddam had no WMD's when we invaded, I have no way of being certain of this, and neither do you or any of your various post-invasion inspection reports.
So, do we have a clear understanding of what I said now? I DON'T KNOW... doesn't mean that I KNOW. In fact, they are completely opposite!
"It certainly appears that Saddam had no WMD's at the time we invaded. There are any number of reasons for this, not the least of which, could be a deliberate illusion constructed by Saddam....So, do we have a clear understanding of what I said now? I DON'T KNOW... "
But surely at this point you can make an informed judgment, instead of hiding behind the "I don’t know!" excuse.
We’ve been on the ground in Iraq for four years, scoured the country, captured or interrogated all top Iraqi officials and scientists who conceivably could have been involved in Iraq’s alleged WMDs. Also, in the past four years, any single technician, truck driver, or soldier who was potentially involved in allegedly hiding or destroying the WMD could have come forward to tell us what happened. I’m sure reward money was offered by us to any Iraqi with credible information.
So, given that, what do you JUDGE is more likely:
1) That saddam hid or destroyed the WMD on the eve of the invasion?
OR…..
2) Saddam didn’t have WMD when we invaded?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
But surely at this point you can make an informed judgment, instead of hiding behind the "I don’t know!" excuse.
My informed judgement is, he started getting rid of his arsenal the moment President Bush called him part of the Axis of Evil. Knowing the WMD's would be useless to him as a defense weapon, and understanding that one way or the other, the world (UN) would have to be satisfied that he had no WMD's, it's not unreasonable to conclude, he got rid of what he had. When we finally got through pissing in the wind at the UN, and took action, it APPEARED he had no WMD's.
Also, in the past four years, any single technician, truck driver, or soldier who was potentially involved in allegedly hiding or destroying the WMD could have come forward to tell us what happened.
One person did come forward and tell of how the WMD's were smuggled into Syria and hidden in abandon railroad caves... you laughed at him and discounted his statements. There are other people who have come forward, and who's statements are still classified, and we might not fully know what they had to say for years. You assume that because CNN and CBS News aren't broadcasting it 24/7, it must not have happened. You don't know what we've been told, you have no clue of what classified intelligence information we have gathered, and you are making an assumption based on incomplete knowledge, which is the textbook definition of a fool.
So, given that, what do you JUDGE is more likely:
1) That saddam hid or destroyed the WMD on the eve of the invasion?
OR…..
2) Saddam didn’t have WMD when we invaded?
Why would Saddam have to destroy the WMD's "on the eve of invasion"? Where is the possibility that Saddam hid or destroyed them, before he ever allowed a UN inspector to set foot in Iraq? Is that not a possibility? See, I don't think Saddam would have waited until the eve of invasion to destroy the WMD's or get rid of them, that would be stupid beyond belief... in fact, if he even tried such a thing in the days leading up to the war, we would have known immediately. I think he started getting rid of the WMD's the day after Bush's Axis of Evil speech, which was months and months before invasion.
Let me ask you a question of likelihood now...
Which is more probable...
1. The intelligence agencies from around the world, who had various independent sources, were all completely wrong about Saddam's WMD programs.
2. Saddam knew he had to get rid of the WMD's one way or another, and chose to get rid of them on his own.
I don't know why I pose this question of logic to you, of course you have no logical abilities, and the concept is greek to you. I guess I just figure it's worth a shot, maybe a little light will come on in your pinhead, and you'll realize that we don't KNOW a whole hell of a lot here, MOST of what we KNOW, is speculation or opinion, and there is no way to prove or disprove anything.
In the decades to come, information will be declassified eventually, and we will have a clearer picture of what exactly happened to the WMD's. Right now, it's speculative, the public has limited information, and it's impossible to make an informed decision with limited information.
My informed judgement is, he started getting rid of his arsenal the moment President Bush called him part of the Axis of Evil. Knowing the WMD's would be useless to him as a defense weapon, and understanding that one way or the other, the world (UN) would have to be satisfied that he had no WMD's, it's not unreasonable to conclude, he got rid of what he had. When we finally got through pissing in the wind at the UN, and took action, it APPEARED he had no WMD's.
Also, in the past four years, any single technician, truck driver, or soldier who was potentially involved in allegedly hiding or destroying the WMD could have come forward to tell us what happened.
One person did come forward and tell of how the WMD's were smuggled into Syria and hidden in abandon railroad caves... you laughed at him and discounted his statements. There are other people who have come forward, and who's statements are still classified, and we might not fully know what they had to say for years. You assume that because CNN and CBS News aren't broadcasting it 24/7, it must not have happened. You don't know what we've been told, you have no clue of what classified intelligence information we have gathered, and you are making an assumption based on incomplete knowledge, which is the textbook definition of a fool.
So, given that, what do you JUDGE is more likely:
1) That saddam hid or destroyed the WMD on the eve of the invasion?
OR…..
2) Saddam didn’t have WMD when we invaded?
Why would Saddam have to destroy the WMD's "on the eve of invasion"? Where is the possibility that Saddam hid or destroyed them, before he ever allowed a UN inspector to set foot in Iraq? Is that not a possibility? See, I don't think Saddam would have waited until the eve of invasion to destroy the WMD's or get rid of them, that would be stupid beyond belief... in fact, if he even tried such a thing in the days leading up to the war, we would have known immediately. I think he started getting rid of the WMD's the day after Bush's Axis of Evil speech, which was months and months before invasion.
Let me ask you a question of likelihood now...
Which is more probable...
1. The intelligence agencies from around the world, who had various independent sources, were all completely wrong about Saddam's WMD programs.
2. Saddam knew he had to get rid of the WMD's one way or another, and chose to get rid of them on his own.
I don't know why I pose this question of logic to you, of course you have no logical abilities, and the concept is greek to you. I guess I just figure it's worth a shot, maybe a little light will come on in your pinhead, and you'll realize that we don't KNOW a whole hell of a lot here, MOST of what we KNOW, is speculation or opinion, and there is no way to prove or disprove anything.
In the decades to come, information will be declassified eventually, and we will have a clearer picture of what exactly happened to the WMD's. Right now, it's speculative, the public has limited information, and it's impossible to make an informed decision with limited information.
