rhino 0 #51 October 7, 2004 QuoteProve that Blix, Kay, Duelfer, and Bouradi are wrong and you are right. I don't need to... The fact that they had WMD's... But.... Strangely they can't be found now.... Proves me right..... Duh... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #52 October 7, 2004 QuoteYou can't prove that he did have them. Homie the clown SLAMS you over the head with the sock!! lol Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #53 October 7, 2004 Quoteagainst a civilian populace with no armed forces? In case you haven't been paying attention... The civilian population IS an armed force... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #54 October 7, 2004 QuoteHomie the clown SLAMS you over the head with the sock!! lol er... drink less alcohol, eat more ruffage - my tip of the day; it could help with that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #55 October 7, 2004 QuoteQuoteProve that Blix, Kay, Duelfer, and Bouradi are wrong and you are right. I don't need to... The fact that they had WMD's... But.... Strangely they can't be found now.... Proves me right..... Duh... And the US had slavery. And the US had chemical and biological weapons. Things change. Every qualified inspector in country contradicts your position. Colin Powell contradicts your position. Tony Blair contradicts your position.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #56 October 7, 2004 QuoteEvery qualified inspector in country contradicts your position. Maybe so.. But they are ALL influenced by the highest bidder and politics... You can't deny that... Even the UN that so many on here tout is corrupt and stealing money from the Iraqi's... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #57 October 7, 2004 QuoteI don't need to... The fact that they had WMD's... But.... Strangely they can't be found now.... Proves me right..... I cannot fathom how anyone can possibly conclude that the absence of WMD in 2004 is "PROOF" that Saddam had WMD in 2001. That statement is quite simply bereft of any logic! Now once again, as the report specifically states – the absence of any WMD at this time, is a part of the wealth of evidence of the fact that he did not have WMD before the invasion and that he had not had since 1991. That is what the report says - no "ifs" no "buts" just plain and simple - Saddam had no WMD. It’s amazing that some people still want to argue that point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #58 October 7, 2004 QuoteQuoteEvery qualified inspector in country contradicts your position. Maybe so.. But they are ALL influenced by the highest bidder and politics... You can't deny that... Even the UN that so many on here tout is corrupt and stealing money from the Iraqi's... So Tony Blair and Colin Powell are all in the conspiracy with Blix and Kay?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #59 October 7, 2004 QuoteSo Tony Blair and Colin Powell are all in the conspiracy with Blix and Kay? no no no, don't be so silly. They're in a conspiracy with Elvis (who incidentally was the man on the grassy knoll) in a global plot to bring the world under Martian domination. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #60 October 7, 2004 QuoteI cannot fathom how anyone can possibly conclude that the absence of WMD in 2004 is "PROOF" that Saddam had WMD in 2001. You are right.. You aren't paying attention or FATHOMING anything at this point.. Go re-read my post.. And THINK about it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #61 October 7, 2004 QuoteThat is what the report says - no "ifs" no "buts" just plain and simple - Saddam had no WMD. It’s amazing that some people still want to argue that point. You are such an innocent sheep... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #62 October 7, 2004 QuoteSo Tony Blair and Colin Powell are all in the conspiracy with Blix and Kay? How do you mean? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #63 October 7, 2004 QuoteQuoteThat is what the report says - no "ifs" no "buts" just plain and simple - Saddam had no WMD. It’s amazing that some people still want to argue that point. Oh, he had them and used them. Not that long ago. Saddam Chemical Weapon Use Glance at these pics and re-read your statement above. Edited to add: Sorry...not very organized today. I replied to Rhino but meant to reply to mr2mk1g. My bad. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mr2mk1g 10 #64 October 7, 2004 QuoteYou are such an innocent sheep... Do you realise quite how much you sound like one of those conspiracy theory nut bags? This honestly isn’t intended as an attack or anything, but that really is how you are coming across right now. EVERYONE is saying one thing – together with all the politicians, statesmen and official reports… and you are saying the opposite. When you are right and everyone else is wrong perhaps you’ve missed something? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mr2mk1g 10 #65 October 7, 2004 Yup - he had them, and he used them. 1988... that would be before GW1... This report clearly states he has not had WMD since 1991 - no one is denying that he had them before that time though… but the report Bush commissioned says there were no WMD before GW2. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #66 October 7, 2004 Ah yes, no one is going to deny he had them in 88, but the link I sent the thread a few posts up quite clearly states that:- "Iraq unilaterally destroyed its hidden chemical weapons stockpile in 1991, and there is no credible evidence that Iraq ever resumed producing such weapons. " on the subject of biological weapons:- "There was no evidence of any biological weapons work after 1996, and Saddam expressed no interest in biological weapons after that time. "-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jdhill 0 #67 October 7, 2004 QuoteEvery qualified inspector in country contradicts your position They do not contradict the fact that Iraq's WMD stockpile, which was known to exist in the 90's (in fact he had banned missiles until 2 months before the war), destruction is not documented as required by UN sanction... Now add that to intelligence, from multiple sources, that says he has programs, and his games with inspection teams... now, even if you get intelligence suggesting he may not have programs, you've just been attacked buy a group know to have ties with SH (not neccessarily a colabrotive position in this attack)... Now add the fact that the Iraq thing has been going on for 12 years, and the only way SH does anything is at gun point, and the US and UK are the only ones who seem to be willing to point the gun at him... What decision do you make... action, or wait and see? The war on terror is not just a war on AQ, or a hunt for OBL... it is a war on all terror supporters and organizations. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #68 October 7, 2004 QuoteYup - he had them, and he used them. 1988... that would be before GW1... This report clearly states he has not had WMD since 1991 - no one is denying that he had them before that time though… but the report Bush commissioned says there were no WMD before GW2. And he continued to fuck with UN weapons inspectors for 12 years including kicking them out of the country just to put it into perspective. 1988 wasn't that long ago. Maybe for some here who might have been born in the 90's or something. They never showed that they'd gotten rid of them which was what was required. I think 12 years is plenty of time to comply. I think it's ridiculous that Kerry asserts that we didn't allow the inspectors to do their jobs. We did. Iraq didn't. And we had to be the enforcement power in place of the UN because the UN is a flaccid, ineffective, and corrupt organization. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mr2mk1g 10 #69 October 7, 2004 I don't dissagree with what you say there... but that's not why we were told we were going to war, and that's not what we are being given now as the reason for going to war. We did not go to war because he was dicking with us, or kicking out the UN inspectors. We were told we were going to war because he had WMD. He did not. I accept that we thought he did at the time based on faulty intel and that is indeed regretable. There is a lesson inherent in that error. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhino 0 #70 October 7, 2004 Quotethat really is how you are coming across right now. And you are coming across as a 15 year old blonde that just had sex thinking the JUMP METHOD is going to work from keeping you pregnant... lol Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhino 0 #71 October 7, 2004 QuoteIraq unilaterally destroyed its hidden chemical weapons stockpile in 1991 That was never proven either... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhino 0 #72 October 7, 2004 QuoteI think 12 years is plenty of time to comply. I think it's ridiculous that Kerry asserts that we didn't allow the inspectors to do their jobs. We did. Iraq didn't. Nice to see some intelligence in here.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mr2mk1g 10 #73 October 7, 2004 If the blond is thinking the condom used gives here 99% protection because the Surgeon General, her own doctor, the pharmacist, the packet and instruction manual and her school Sex Ed. class all told her that it would then I would support her. Which of us is the blond stood there believing something which everyone else tells them is wrong? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhino 0 #74 October 7, 2004 QuoteWe were told we were going to war because he had WMD. That was ONE of MANY reasons we went... Go look up all the UN resolutions that Sadham was ignoring thinking no one would respond because he had the French, Germans and Russians already bought out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhino 0 #75 October 7, 2004 She never had a condom.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 3 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
mr2mk1g 10 #64 October 7, 2004 QuoteYou are such an innocent sheep... Do you realise quite how much you sound like one of those conspiracy theory nut bags? This honestly isn’t intended as an attack or anything, but that really is how you are coming across right now. EVERYONE is saying one thing – together with all the politicians, statesmen and official reports… and you are saying the opposite. When you are right and everyone else is wrong perhaps you’ve missed something? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #65 October 7, 2004 Yup - he had them, and he used them. 1988... that would be before GW1... This report clearly states he has not had WMD since 1991 - no one is denying that he had them before that time though… but the report Bush commissioned says there were no WMD before GW2. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #66 October 7, 2004 Ah yes, no one is going to deny he had them in 88, but the link I sent the thread a few posts up quite clearly states that:- "Iraq unilaterally destroyed its hidden chemical weapons stockpile in 1991, and there is no credible evidence that Iraq ever resumed producing such weapons. " on the subject of biological weapons:- "There was no evidence of any biological weapons work after 1996, and Saddam expressed no interest in biological weapons after that time. "-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #67 October 7, 2004 QuoteEvery qualified inspector in country contradicts your position They do not contradict the fact that Iraq's WMD stockpile, which was known to exist in the 90's (in fact he had banned missiles until 2 months before the war), destruction is not documented as required by UN sanction... Now add that to intelligence, from multiple sources, that says he has programs, and his games with inspection teams... now, even if you get intelligence suggesting he may not have programs, you've just been attacked buy a group know to have ties with SH (not neccessarily a colabrotive position in this attack)... Now add the fact that the Iraq thing has been going on for 12 years, and the only way SH does anything is at gun point, and the US and UK are the only ones who seem to be willing to point the gun at him... What decision do you make... action, or wait and see? The war on terror is not just a war on AQ, or a hunt for OBL... it is a war on all terror supporters and organizations. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #68 October 7, 2004 QuoteYup - he had them, and he used them. 1988... that would be before GW1... This report clearly states he has not had WMD since 1991 - no one is denying that he had them before that time though… but the report Bush commissioned says there were no WMD before GW2. And he continued to fuck with UN weapons inspectors for 12 years including kicking them out of the country just to put it into perspective. 1988 wasn't that long ago. Maybe for some here who might have been born in the 90's or something. They never showed that they'd gotten rid of them which was what was required. I think 12 years is plenty of time to comply. I think it's ridiculous that Kerry asserts that we didn't allow the inspectors to do their jobs. We did. Iraq didn't. And we had to be the enforcement power in place of the UN because the UN is a flaccid, ineffective, and corrupt organization. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #69 October 7, 2004 I don't dissagree with what you say there... but that's not why we were told we were going to war, and that's not what we are being given now as the reason for going to war. We did not go to war because he was dicking with us, or kicking out the UN inspectors. We were told we were going to war because he had WMD. He did not. I accept that we thought he did at the time based on faulty intel and that is indeed regretable. There is a lesson inherent in that error. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #70 October 7, 2004 Quotethat really is how you are coming across right now. And you are coming across as a 15 year old blonde that just had sex thinking the JUMP METHOD is going to work from keeping you pregnant... lol Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #71 October 7, 2004 QuoteIraq unilaterally destroyed its hidden chemical weapons stockpile in 1991 That was never proven either... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #72 October 7, 2004 QuoteI think 12 years is plenty of time to comply. I think it's ridiculous that Kerry asserts that we didn't allow the inspectors to do their jobs. We did. Iraq didn't. Nice to see some intelligence in here.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #73 October 7, 2004 If the blond is thinking the condom used gives here 99% protection because the Surgeon General, her own doctor, the pharmacist, the packet and instruction manual and her school Sex Ed. class all told her that it would then I would support her. Which of us is the blond stood there believing something which everyone else tells them is wrong? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #74 October 7, 2004 QuoteWe were told we were going to war because he had WMD. That was ONE of MANY reasons we went... Go look up all the UN resolutions that Sadham was ignoring thinking no one would respond because he had the French, Germans and Russians already bought out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #75 October 7, 2004 She never had a condom.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
