DUDE, Bush clearly sais "they had no weapons of mass destruction but they had the capacity to make them" How the fuck could you ever proove there were such weapons if even the american president clearly sais they had no WMDs? Do you actually believe you know more about what's happening in Iraq then your president?
Let me guess, you are like almost all ignorant americans which believe that a WMD is only a nuke....which is why Bush made that speech. A nuke is one of the real reasons we went after saddam...and that proves Bush's statement true. They did not have nukes, probably because they had already shipped them to Syria.
They technically found them. Therefore his original assumption is true. However because saying "I was technically right" would be seen as snide, and there were no mass quantities and stockpiles of agents - he would have been right to have said "There were no mass stockpiles of WMDs" rather than "There were no WMDs".
I've already addressed this. Are you admitting that your knee jerk reaction comes from not following the thread posts? I've already done so. Are you further admitting you do not have the ability to following along? Apparently I know more than you do on the subject. Is this the best you could offer to refute the evidence I've outlined?
reality is not important to gtech he just wants to win his arguement and justfiy the war anyway possible it is impossible for him to admit he was wrong and invading iraq was not the right thing to do for awhile he would say that the WMDs got moved to syria but when I pointed out that would mean we kind of lost the war, since securing the WMDs was a major point of the invasion, he changed up to "well we found some 20 year old scraps from the Iran/Iraq war therefore Iraq had WMDs and I WAS RIGHT ! I'M A WINNER" Next he will quote some democrats that say Saddam had WMDS and in his mind if that makes the war OK too.
wether I can follow a thread or not of if you know more about this issue than me or not is completely irrelevant. The fact is you don't know more than Bush does about Iraq, so if he sais there were no WMDs in Iraq I don't see why you keep trying to convince people there actually were WMDs there. Now this means that you somehow have more information about Iraq than Bush. If you can proove that you have more information than Bush and all the secret services that give such information to the president then I will believe what you say about Iraq.
If the real reason the US went after Saddam is because he had a nuke they why didn't the US go in syria to get that nuke?
It's quite relevant and you've made that point on my behalf, whether intentional or not. Once again, I have already explained this and have already presented the information. I take it the reason you cannot or will not refute the evidence provided is because you cannot? I challenge you to refute it. I'll check in on the thread, in case you decided to abandon the lazy route of opinion and speculation and refute the evidence provided. Hot air does not trump fact.
Offering words of consolation to someone who has the inability to refute the evidence, not unlike yourself, is very thoughtful and kind towards your position, however, I've also shown your usual dishonesty above. In fact, it would appear that "reality" is not important to you, as you tried to pass off chemical wmd as "inert." I've corrected you on this before, so it is not due to being uninformed, it's due to dishonesty. This is a strawman argument. It is not the issue at hand, nor is it in discussion. It's a diversionary tactic that has no foundation on the discussion. Another dishonest attempt. Of course, for someone who calls soldiers dumb and has never said a good thing about America, it's no surprise that your place no value on your integrity. A UN report concluded some WMD was moved to Syria. I've posted info on this before. Calling mustard gas and sarin "scraps" in light of the information presented above only reinforces your dishonesty. If necessary, I will, however, this is not part of the current discussion. I might point out that if I do post such, you will give them a pass. Try again, ferret. You have someone to cheerlead for. Now's your chance When you "boys" get through with the diversionary tactics and opinions, try refuting the evidence I've provided. Or, maybe you can't and posts like this one are the best you can come up with?
He did. But ferret likes to blame the US for doing that. He doesn't want saddam to be held accountable for his actions because he hates Bush.
1. actually as I said before wether I can follow a thread or not or if you know more or less than me is irrelevant. What was your point anyway? 2. Surely Bush also had access to the "evidence" you presented but he still concluded that there were no WMDs in Iraq. If the "evidence" you presented really are facts then why did Bush said there were no WMDs in Iraq?
We have asked Syria to turn over everything they have...yet they haven't complied...not only do they probably have some of Saddam's WMD's, they also harbored some of his admin and let their fighters cross the syria/iraq border freely.
As you continue to confirm, it is very much relevant. For if you had followed along, you would not be asking such questions, as I have already covered them. Repacking the same assertion. As noted above, several times, had you actually followed along, you would not be asking these questions. Let me know if you decide to step up to the plate and refute the evidence I've provided. Speculation and misleading questions that have been answered don't seem to be working for you.
there's no need for me to refute the "evidence" you've provided...Bush already did when he claimed there were no WMDs in Iraq and I tend to believe the president of the strongest country in the world when he admits there were no WMDs there rather than believing a random dude from the internet who gathered some articles from the internet and presents them as "evidence"
I know. You cannot refute it. Once again, I've already covered this. Did you want to try a different approach?
you forgot to answer to the most important part of my previous post which is this: what's your answer to that?