1)Saddam has been a threat since he got the power. That's why he was used against Iran, because he was dangerous and had to be managed and eventually removed. Ask Kuwait! 2)Nor would they ever complete their job, getting so much money, from both the UN and Saddam, living an easy and rich life. 3) What's wrong with getting such a criminal? Not getting him would have been much worse, ask the curds! 4) AK47s are a lot more popular among terrorists, criminals, revolutionary movements and so on, I wonder why? Maybe they are just more available?
Why would I need to discredit it? It is not proof, even taking what he says word for word he's speculating. You linked to it, sorry didn't realise it was old my 'bad' Where I speculate or you accuse me of it is trying to show an example such as the patriot act, you however are using an experts own 'speculation' for proof, a clear difference. Of course there is going to be some speculation laid out in any sane debate, otherwise there would be no way to debate anything. However using speculation as proof is a total different ball game. Let those reading see if Loftus's comments are 'speculation' or absolute proof it was VX. Here is a link to your expert himself talking of the issue, sure doesn't look like first hand knowledge or facts to me, looks like speculation of which 'might' be correct, nothing submitted by your or that I've personally read on the subject though shows proof to it being true. http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/larryelder/2004/05/06/11594.html ---edit i'll let the thread DIE, sorry did not realise it was old I think enough has been stated that those reading can see the difference between it being fact and or speculation, if they want to see it as fact then fine, they however have a funny definition of proof and or facts ---edit as I said I would let it die I don't wish to bump the thread with a new post Not a problem, I have no fear of doing even more research for you on this if it proves me wrong or right. This however does not show proof, it shows one expert stating it 'appears' to be VX, not that it actually definitively is.
To which you offer nothing to dispute. Not one thing, other than your opinion. I have a source I can quote (thanks for doing my work for me above!), and you have...? What do you have?
If someone points a gun against hrblcantra; he will not be afraid because he have no proofs that the gunman have a fullworking gun with deadly ammo.
Let me ask you, are you an idiot? Do you not see the difference between someone speculating with no first hand knowledge compared to someone who actually has proof. Sorry for the bumping the thread, I appologize.
Speculation: Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition. Appears 1- To seem or look to be 2- To seem likely Gtech This the reason when someone says it appears to be then it means he is speculating and have no hard facts.
I'l tell ya.. if we could attack Nazi-germany in the early 30-is, cuaslaties would be less than 80 miljon. But I guess thats just what we have to live thruogh again, just because you need primary proofs. "I don't know with what weapons WW3 will be fought with, but I know that WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones" - Albert Einstein
You obviously do not know the facts of why this dispute was brought up. Even if I was totally for the war when I see someone putting out something that has not been proven as facts I will call them on it. I am not disputing the war because of this statement. I'll give Gtech it could very well could be VX, I am not disputing that it is not VX I am disputing the factual basis to come up with that conclusion at this time. Again I appologize for the bump someone yell at me already for this lol primary proofs I take exception to this as I would have been for the war with less 'proofs' including a different reasoning and or timing.
Which is where the experience of a WMD expert is vital, gworld. For example, if it were you or hrb, then I would put no stock into it. As as such, neither of you have anything to discredit the WMD expert's opinion. Just because you don't want it to be true, doesn't mean it's not. Just came across some more info on him: http://www.slattsnews.observationdeck.org/?p=502 You obtain it from the local drug store! An interview with Loftus: http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3670 I quoted a source, I stand behind that source. You have ...? What do you have?
I am posting this in hopes you at least see my point not to disprove you as it 'may' be VX, it very well could be VX. However every mention of sarin or vx has come from articles that feature Loftus and or extreme right wing publications with no reference to how they came up with the Sarin. If you have one please post it. Again it very well could be VX, I'll even give you that you are probally right it is VX if that makes you happy, there still however is no factual basis other than an expert with no first hand knowledge speculating that it is VX. Maybe I'm being picky, but if your statement would for example state 'it's been reported it could be VX' I would not give it a second thought. I simply fear others reading a thread and taking that as absolute proof, then spreading to others who don't know the basis of it causing alot of uninformed people. If this was a closed thread forum, with only a few speaking who knows I may not even bring it up. ---edit don't you just hate when you think you fixed a typo only to see it was correct the first time, ohwell sure I missed about 20 others
Thankyou for admitting that you are pro-war. Yes, I also believe that the war appeared for another reason but I guess the basic people would never understand it. About WMDs.. Saddam actually had WMDs.. but they disappeared
For the right reasons, in the right time no doubt I would have supported the administrations decision to go to war. I believe he probally did have some to start with when we went in, but thus far it has yet to trully be proven.
You are being picky. It lends confusion to your positions, because you say you are for one thing, but argue something completely different. Just an observation. I see what you argue and what you don't, I'm sure others do as well. I don't buy the last paragraph. I've seen you skip right over too many things in other topics/threads. I've quoted a source, a qualified source with the experience to make such a claim. You have ... ?
That's your opinion, I see nothing wrong with being for one thing but not allowing those on your side to embelish facts, I think it only strengthens the case when you're willing to get those twisted distortions cleared up and use the actual facts. If you like to use the entire assortment of facts and distortions that's up to you. Yes I don't debate every topic, every mistep, I however do when I feel it's important, or I have something to say on the matter. Of course some items I'm not going to have any knowledge on, or care one way or the other as it depends on the topic. I've called even anti war people and stuff have I not? You've quoted speculation, tell you what, I'm still getting into the whole debate as I'm out of practice I do think I'm getting there though, guess that's for you to decide. If you see an item that is obviously fictional but supporting my position posted by another member call me on it if you wish I admit sometimes I read a post and either don't respond, or respond to quickly and 5 seconds later it processes to what it had meant and I took it the wrong way.
I see what you argue and what you don't. Just an observation. Have you? I see what you argue and what you don't. Just an observation. I've quoted an expert fully qualified to make such a claim and stick by it. I'm arguing your speculation. I have a source, you have ... ? What do you have?
Well then I'm glad for you being a chess master, or could it be that only certain topics have been discussed? I'm using your own expert who factually disproves your point, He speculates he does not say we know with abolute certainty it has to be, or that he tested and it was found to be, he speculates that it is.