Okay, who wants an overload of hypocracy this Sunday afternoon?

[CptStern]

I don't think Bush should have used WMDs as the biggest reason to go to war. He should have known sadam would either hide them really well or not have them.

he already knew (watch this short video)

He should have used helping people as the biggest point

that would be a lie

 

[Glirk Dient]

Nah, I simply said he should have known. He most likely did expect something like this but he probally expected to trace it. Alas we haven't found them, but since they have the capability and reason to make them, on top of shady activities, it almost seems dumb to say he doesn't...or didn't have them. However, that is going off topic now and has been debated too much. It simply boils down to we haven't found them yet but theres a lot of evidence pointing to them having WMDs.

 

[No Limit]

Nah, I simply said he should have known. He most likely did expect something like this but he probally expected to trace it. Alas we haven't found them, but since they have the capability and reason to make them, on top of shady activities, it almost seems dumb to say he doesn't...or didn't have them. However, that is going off topic now and has been debated too much. It simply boils down to we haven't found them yet but theres a lot of evidence pointing to them having WMDs.

No, it isn't going too far offtopic. I am sick of you dodging the most obvious facts. You just said he should have known. Why should he have known?

 

[Glirk Dient]

He should have known because sadam is a very shady person. He has the capability of hiding things very well(the labs in trucks for instance). Bush most likely thought that didn't matter much because we had so much evidence that pointed to him having WMDs...even though we didn't have evidence of the WMDs physically. We do have an awsome intelligence agency(for the most part) that is very good at finding things like this, so that final link probally didn't matter to him. That is where the weak link was and why he shouldn't have used that as his main point for the war in Iraq.

 

[Lemonking]

evidence that was made up if you ask me

 

[No Limit]

He should have known because sadam is a very shady person. He has the capability of hiding things very well(the labs in trucks for instance). Bush most likely thought that didn't matter much because we had so much evidence that pointed to him having WMDs...even though we didn't have evidence of the WMDs physically. We do have an awsome intelligence agency(for the most part) that is very good at finding things like this, so that final link probally didn't matter to him. That is where the weak link was and why he shouldn't have used that as his main point for the war in Iraq.

You have 0 intelligence that says Saddam moved any WMDs or hid them. Try again, Bush said he was absolutely sure saddam had WMDs. What intelligence report claimed that saddam definetly had WMDs. Also, you still haven't answered my question. You said Bush should have known that saddam wouldn't have WMDs, what information told him that?

 

[Glirk Dient]

That is simply my own personal belief, not an evidence related fact. I didn't say he should have known that sadam wouldn't have WMDs...I said he should have knows sadam would try to hide them and remove evidence, and as such there may have been a chance we wouldn't find them. For that reason it shouldn't have been the main reason for invading.

On top of that, why would weapons equipment be systematically removed? It was not looted, but removed in an organized way. Why would someone do this? They are removing it for a purpose...could you take a jab at what that purpose may be?

 

[No Limit]

That is simply my own personal belief, not an evidence related fact. I didn't say he should have known that sadam wouldn't have WMDs...I said he should have knows sadam would try to hide them and remove evidence, and as such there may have been a chance we wouldn't find them. For that reason it shouldn't have been the main reason for invading.

So what evidance do you have that Saddam hid them? You can't possibly be making such an accusation without evidance? If you say Syria I will tell you right now you are wrong:

http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?U...Q2Fj(BiQ3EdQ2Fbbi--BQ7CXQ3Enlf-BVj(Q7CEQ3CXdi

Arms Move to Syria 'Unlikely,' Report Says

On Syria, the report said that "no information gleaned from questioning Iraqis supported the possibility" that weapons were moved out of the country before the invasion, which was one theory about why no unconventional weapons were found.

Mr. Duelfer reported that his group, the Iraq Survey Group, believed "it was unlikely that an official transfer of W.M.D. material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, I.S.G. was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited W.M.D.-related materials."

On top of that, why would weapons equipment be systematically removed? It was not looted, but removed in an organized way. Why would someone do this? They are removing it for a purpose...could you take a jab at what that purpose may be?

Sources? I'm not sure what you are takling about. Most weapons were stolen under our watch, not removed by Saddam.

 

[Icarusintel]

there's a thread about WMDs already, sitting right next to this one, as poor as your topic is, you could try to stay on it, since it's yours

 

[No Limit]

there's a thread about WMDs already, sitting right next to this one, as poor as your topic is, you could try to stay on it, since it's yours

Thank you for your constructive opinion but stay the hell out if you have nothing to add. As far as I know there is no "Moderator" under your name.

 

[Dag]

Thank you for your constructive opinion but stay the hell out if you have nothing to add. As far as I know there is no "Moderator" under your name.

But he's still right. :angel:

 

[No Limit]

But he's still right. :angel:

Take it up with a mod.

 

[Glirk Dient]

You still haven't answered why a country accused of making WMDs would remove the equipment that could be used to make weapons. Almost sounds like someone didn't want us seeing what and when that equipment was used. Tell me why else it would be removed if not to hide the fact that he made illegal weapons.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2114820/

 

[Lemonking]

you still belive they had them?
hahwhahahahahahahahahaahahahah

 

[No Limit]

You still haven't answered why a country accused of making WMDs would remove the equipment that could be used to make weapons. Almost sounds like someone didn't want us seeing what and when that equipment was used. Tell me why else it would be removed if not to hide the fact that he made illegal weapons.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2114820/

Are you not aware of anything that goes on around you? That article talks about the tons of explosives that were looted (I am at work and thats what I got, correct me if Im wrong). Those explosives were 100% legal and the UN had full accountabilty of them; that is until they were lost under our, not Saddam's, control. Again, we lost these weapons, not Saddam.

 

[Glirk Dient]

Here is a quote from that article..I simply read through it quickly as I don't have all day to read it.

The kinds of machinery at the various sites included equipment that could be used to make missile parts, chemical weapons or centrifuges essential for enriching uranium for atom bombs.

In any case, that quote says what I am trying to prove.

 

[bliink]

Topic.

 

[Dag]

Take it up with a mod.

It's been taken.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I'm confused.

This thread started about how Republicans before Iraq were telling Clinton not to do what they later did. Hypocrisy. Fair enough. So why is everybody claiming this thread has no point?

 

[Glirk Dient]

Probally because of what it has boiled down to.

However, call it hypocrisy if you want, but when new mounting evidence comes up that sometimes tends to make people more aware and change their minds, whether or not they believe that evidence to still be true.