No, as I've stated quite a few times now, I covered this. See page two. Please don't be lazy. Let me know if you have something to refute the sources besides opinion.
Correct. And it's a few posts above this one, that iul should be focusing on. saddam would proud of a few here trying to defend him, but they are having a terrible time with the facts.
Incorrect, you are being dishonest again. I covered this on page two. I'll do my best to keep you honest, but you have to work with me.
You only gave the definiton of WMDs there. Again, Bush knows what you know and a whole lot more about this issue so why did he said there were no WMDs in Iraq? You keep avoiding to answer this question.
It took you ten minutes to come up with that? I keep reminding you I've answered this on page two. You keep avoiding following along in the thread. I'll keep posting more wmd finds while you figure out a new strategy for saddam.
You don't say anything about Bush on page two so I really don't see how it covers my question. Again, I challenge you to answer this question: Considering that bush knows what you know and a lot more about Iraq why did he say there are no WMDs in Iraq?
I've already covered this on page two. I cannot fathom why it is so difficult for you to find it, but since it seems to be getting the best of you, here is the post: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=3055176&postcount=30 Are you able to refute any of the reports I've posted?
as I said before Bush already refuted all the crap you posted as evidence so there's no need for me to waste my time doing it. Anyway, I'm going out to have a beer and watch a football game. Have fun being dellusional and believeing you know more than the US president Peace
No, Bush has not refuted it, nor have you. Want to try again? Did you finally find that post on page two? Good grief!
I'll check back later to see if you decide to refute any of the actual evidence. Out of curiosity, if you were a terrorist and stumbled upon 500 rounds of ammunition that contained sarin and mustard gas, what would you do with it? (Please don't misconstrue this as implying in any way that you are a terrorist, I am not. It's simply a "thought provoking" question.)
First of all articles from the internet or from newspapers isn't exactly what I would call "evidence" so I'm not going to waste my time trying to refute such "evidence". Show me the WMDs they found in Iraq if there is any. Show me all the stuff you said they found there. THAT'S EVIDENCE! And you still haven't answered my question. I have one simple question: Considering the fact that Bush has all the "evidence" you provided and a whole lot more from CIA and whatever other organisations the US has why did he concluded there were no WMDs in Iraq? It's a simple question so I don't see why you keep avoiding to give a direct answer to this question. And about your question... I don't see what's so "thought provoking" about it. I'm pretty sure anyone (including me) who would want to do as much damage as possible would use the WMDs if they found some I hope you will take your time to answer my question too @ d16man If you're not contributing in any way to the debate what's the point of posting that crap?
it really gets you all riled up doesn't it? I think you need to check your blood pressure....as far as me contributing, I think GTech is doing a fine job of answering every question you have asked....yet you still seem to be to lazy to try and respond with a decent rebuttal. You have yet to post any facts, as opposed to opinions. Sorry, but I was just stating the obvious in that GTech is owning you in every post....truth hurts, doesn't it?
These are stories, news stories that went out around the world. It seems to me you have now renegotiated the terms to something impractical...asking me personally to show you. Hate to break it to you, bud, but neither you or I are that important. I get the feeling that for you, personally, nothing will convince you. And that's ok, if that's how it has to be. This is not true. Not only have I previously answered this, but I provided a direct link to where I had. Repeatedly calling for what I've already answered may be the only thing left to do. It's not going to change the fact that *some* wmd in Iraq have been found. Agreed. If I were a terrorist in Iraq and I came across 500 WMD that had mustard gas and sarin, I would want to accumulate such to repurpose it into IEDs or other types of bombs, like the recent chlorine chemical attacks, to do maximum damage. The shells were corroded, but the contents were still very lethal, as pointed out by wmd experts. So if 500 were found, then WMD were found in Iraq. It's really that simple. I have no qualifiers to go with it, such as the usual (but, but, but those are not the wmd that "we" were looking for). WMD were found. In light of the evidence I've provided, suggesting otherwise is not being honest. The WMD lab I posted about above, was found. US Soldiers were treated for chemical burns from a WMD IED explosive in Iraq. This is just *some* of what has been found. I hope that makes my position more understandable. I stand behind my position and have provided credible information back that position up. It may be unpopular for those against the war, but is accurate.