WoMD ... so where are they?

by Simon 865 Replies latest social current

dubla

t h-
Hmm, well, where is this solid evidence?
maybe we should start a whole new thread if youd like to debate whether or not there was solid evidence against o.j. (lets not completely hijack this one).........i can start digging up links and facts for you on the mountain of evidence, which incidentally was enough to convict on the second time around, if you remember correctly.
he shouldve been convicted during the first trial, imo, and he should be rotting in a jail cell right now instead of golfing 36 holes a day. but, that just goes to show you that some people will refuse evidence when presented with it.
aa
Trauma_Hound

maybe we should start a whole new thread if youd like to debate whether or not there was solid evidence against o.j. (lets not completely hijack this one).........i can start digging up links and facts for you on the mountain of evidence, which incidentally was enough to convict on the second time around, if you remember correctly.
he shouldve been convicted during the first trial, imo, and he should be rotting in a jail cell right now instead of golfing 36 holes a day. but, that just goes to show you that some people will refuse evidence when presented with it.
I wasn't talking about OJ, I don't want to debate OJ, I thought he was Guilty, I'm still waiting for this Solid Evidence, on WOMD.
dubla

t h-
I'm still waiting for this Solid Evidence, on WOMD.
well, if you go back and read this entire thread, youll see ive posted plenty of evidence (and im still waiting for someone to refute it) that iraq has wmd. without rehashing it all, this little tidbit is enough for me:
To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were “unaccounted for”.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-578338,00.html
and as blix says:
"Mustard gas is not marmalade. You are supposed to know what you did with it."
hes got a point there, dont you think? i mean, misplacing your keys is one thing, but geez..........ill repeat myself here, because its always worth repeating: i have yet to hear one reasonable explanation from the skeptics of why iraq couldnt show documentation proving these weapons were destroyed. surely this point cant be that difficult to refute, can it? so lets hear it....? anyone?
simon-
when it comes to running this board, my hat is off to you....its a huge job, and even though you might make mistakes sometimes, you really do a great job overall.
when it comes to logical debate, i have come to the conclusion that you are underqualified for the task. i could document the amount of times youve ignored main points in this discussion (and other discussions for that matter), but it would take a new thread due to the length of the list. you ignore, ignore again, ignore some more, and then proceed to ignore. as im sure you realize, the fact that you ignore what you have no answer for, invalidates any decent points youve made in the process. bravo for starting a thread and not being willing (or more aptly, able) to finish it. you present a smokescreen by accusing me of changing the subject and misrepresenting you, but it is plain to see that i have answered your original post point by point, and all youve done is dance around my responses. you are not, and have not been, debating this topic.......you simply wanted to shout your opinion without having to back it up. you put it best when you said:
I get the impression that some want to "preach" and "announce" and not "discuss".
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/22/48969/1.ashx
yes, id agree.....some would indeed rather preach than discuss.
aa
searchfothetruth

Dubla,
I think the point that you are missing is that Powell stood up at the UN with a dossier of EVIDENCE and showed pictures of what they said WERE WMD.
But since they invaded Iraq not a shread of this so-called evidence has been proved to be true.
The excuse that was used to convince people that they needed to go in was that the WMD's were sitting there waiting to be used and they had to get them quick before they were given to Al-Qaida.
The UN said before the war that 90% of all Iraqi military hardware had been destroyed in the first gulf war and that the country had been essentially dis-armed
The fact that the Antrax etc was un-accounted for was that it had been destroyed in the first gulf war.
Other points to consider:
The United States has a stockpile of 46,830,000 pounds of chemicals for weapons alone, a teaspoon of any of them is enough to maim or kill.
The poison gas used by Iraq was supplied to Saddam Hussein by the Ragan-Bush administration and the man who went to Baghdad in 1983 to arrange the shipments was Donald Rumsfeld, the current US Defence Secretary. The Bush regime has already left thousands of children dead and maimed in Iraq.
And don't forget that it was Britain/US that stopped the weapons inspectors looking for WMD and then used the threat of WMD to invade Iraq, killing at least 5,000 civilians (conservative figures)
dubla

search-
your post is merely a hodge podge of regurgitated arguments....but ill humor you.
I think the point that you are missing is that Powell stood up at the UN with a dossier of EVIDENCE and showed pictures of what they said WERE WMD.
But since they invaded Iraq not a shread of this so-called evidence has been proved to be true.
how have i missed that point? as a matter of fact, ive specifically said that im leaving the jury out on powells evidence until its proven true with hard evidence in iraq....? what point did i miss exactly?
The UN said before the war that 90% of all Iraqi military hardware had been destroyed in the first gulf war and that the country had been essentially dis-armed
this statement makes absolutely zero sense..........if the u.n. believed iraq "had been essentially disarmed", then why would the security council unanimously vote for res.1441 which had the specific aim of disarming iraq? now thats a head scratcher.
The fact that the Antrax etc was un-accounted for was that it had been destroyed in the first gulf war.
you dont have your facts straight. iraq admitted to having chemical agent (who was talking about anthrax?) long AFTER the gulf war. look back over the thread and youll see my links to the u.n. documentation about iraqs admitted wmd up to 1998. as a matter of fact, the u.n. was still in the process of destroying wmds when they were kicked out of iraq in '98.........and youre trying to tell me there was nothing to destroy after the gulf war.........do some research, then get back to me.
heres a follow up to your point......if you believe it was possible to destroy all of iraqs wmd (hypothetically) in the first gulf war, where we barely scratched the surface of their infrastructure......would it be a logical conclusion that during the latest campaign (where the infrastructure was decimated) a good amount of weapons were probably destroyed? im not making the argument that we destroyed all of iraqs wmd in the latest war.....im simply tying in that line of logic to your above point......if you believe your point to be possible, then you cannot in any way be skeptical of finding evidence after the latest campaign. surely we destroyed a whole lot more of iraqs capabilities this time around..?
The United States has a stockpile of 46,830,000 pounds of chemicals for weapons alone, a teaspoon of any of them is enough to maim or kill.
um, that was a point to consider, why? what does the u.s. stockpile have to do with this discussion (of whether or not iraq has wmd)??
The poison gas used by Iraq was supplied to Saddam Hussein by the Ragan-Bush administration and the man who went to Baghdad in 1983 to arrange the shipments was Donald Rumsfeld, the current US Defence Secretary. The Bush regime has already left thousands of children dead and maimed in Iraq.
i wouldnt mind reading some hard facts on this (links if you dont mind), but again, what does that have to do with the discussion about whether or not iraq still possesses wmd? these arguments have already been discussed to death on other threads....i dont see any reason to sidetrack the current topic just to start beating the pile of dead horses that are resting in the archives.
And don't forget that it was Britain/US that stopped the weapons inspectors looking for WMD and then used the threat of WMD to invade Iraq, killing at least 5,000 civilians (conservative figures)
i dont agree with your simplistic assesment.....but again, this pertains to the current topic how? if you want to rehash old threads, i can give you some links and you can bring them bttt.
aa
searchfothetruth

There's no point leaving the jury out on Powell evidence because it has already proved false.
He said that they knew where the WMD were, but haven't found them in the places that we were told that they where.
Of course i've put things in a simplistic way...just so you can understand them.
dubla

search-
There's no point leaving the jury out on Powell evidence because it has already proved false.
He said that they knew where the WMD were, but haven't found them in the places that we were told that they where.
youre under the same illusion as simon....you think powell gave specific coordinates, and then came up empty....ive already proven this line of thinking completely false with hard facts from his presentation to the u.n., and my points have yet to be refuted.
Of course i've put things in a simplistic way...just so you can understand them.
i debunked your post point by point, and you proceeded to ignore (like simon) 99% of my response. whos having the hard time understanding?
i keep asking myself why im still bothering with this thread, when the majority of my words simply get ignored.......but then i realize that selectively responding to my points and disregarding the rest is actually the highest form of flattery, because it means my statements cannot be refuted. so, its bittersweet i guess.
aa
searchfothetruth

He did give specific co-ordinates, he even showed satelite photos!
dubla

He did give specific co-ordinates, he even showed satelite photos!

he also specifically said those sites had been cleaned free of wmd....meaning, there were no longer any wmd being stored there. how do you two get around this fact? its truly baffling.
beating my head against a wall would no doubt be colossally more productive than this.......but, ill keep holding out hope that someone will actually look at the facts with some objectivity.
aa
searchfothetruth

Hang-on a minute...
He showed pictures of WMD, but they had been cleared...when? Before the war?
If they were cleared before the war then there were none to get so why invade. If they were cleared after the war then theres your proof right there, but they weren't were they?
If he showed WMD that had to be destroyed then they must have been current pictures or that would be lying wouldn't it?

WoMD ... so where are they?

Share this