Half of U.S. still believes Iraq had WMD - Page 3

Ardentfrost · 08-07-2006, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

It's better than denying what everyone else has admitted.

You are like a real life Colbert. Facts just get in the way of the truth you know in your gut.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 08-07-2006, 02:12 PM

This thing has gone completely faith based because it's impossible to prove a negative. You can never prove with 100% certainty he didn't have the weapons because it's still technically possible they're hidden up a camel's ass somewhere. Therefore, so long as people want to believe because it's more difficult to admit they were wrong, they'll have a shred of technical possibility to hang onto, no matter how improbable it is.

I bet even 20 years from now a good 25% of people will still think he had them. It's probably only at 50% now because of Santorum's recent announcement.

Nonphixion · 08-07-2006, 02:18 PM

The important part is, we made it up -- and then we admitted we made it up. Is that course of events so difficult to follow?

No offense intended, but the matter seems pretty straightforward

ballz2wallz · 08-07-2006, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by Nonphixion

The important part is, we made it up -- and then we admitted we made it up. Is that course of events so difficult to follow?

No offense intended, but the matter seems pretty straightforward

like i said, i believe the administration has political ramifications to contend with. while they've published various reports of WMD materials, etc. (all of which i've posted before) there is nothing the size of say, an armed nuclear warhead (which is what it would take to convince people like you) that we've found.

we have found mustard and nerve gas in hundreds of rockets, but the fact that they were 'old' means that nobody cares about them. to me, those are WMD, old or not.

Nonphixion · 08-07-2006, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

like i said, i believe the administration has political ramifications to contend with. while they've published various reports of WMD materials, etc. (all of which i've posted before) there is nothing the size of say, an armed nuclear warhead (which is what it would take to convince people like you) that we've found.

we have found mustard and nerve gas in hundreds of rockets, but the fact that they were 'old' means that nobody cares about them. to me, those are WMD, old or not.

There's an important distinction to be made; that we've found hundreds of rockets AND some traces of biological agents. The "hundreds" are not one in the same.

Given that, I will say your statement is "fair enough"

ballz2wallz · 08-07-2006, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by Nonphixion

There's an important distinction to be made; that we've found hundreds of rockets AND some traces of biological agents. The "hundreds" are not one in the same.

Given that, I will say your statement is "fair enough"

not traces...filled. that alone means that he didn't follow the rules and get rid of the ones he had. whether they could have been used is up for debate, but that in and of itself means he didn't get rid of the ones he had.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 08-07-2006, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

we have found mustard and nerve gas in hundreds of rockets, but the fact that they were 'old' means that nobody cares about them. to me, those are WMD, old or not.

What do you mean they're WMD, old or not? You say 'old' as if it's some arbitrary description, which really means nothing. On the contrary, it means everything...it means that these weapons were unusable, i.e, worthless, i.e., posed no danger to anyone. That's like saying children shouldn't be able to own pistols, even if they're 'water' pistols. They're still pistols to you.

ballz2wallz · 08-07-2006, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

What do you mean they're WMD, old or not? You say 'old' as if it's some arbitrary description, which really means nothing. On the contrary, it means everything...it means that these weapons were unusable, i.e, worthless, i.e., posed no danger to anyone. That's like saying children shouldn't be able to own pistols, even if they're 'water' pistols. They're still pistols to you.

the government reports also said there was enough active agent still in them to cause significant harm

Scrum · 08-07-2006, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

the government reports also said there was enough active agent still in them to cause significant harm

The report I remember reading said as severe as a bad skin rash.

DosEquis · 08-07-2006, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

The report I remember reading said as severe as a bad skin rash.

Thats what I read.

ballz2wallz · 08-07-2006, 04:14 PM

the saddam tapes are pretty telling

motivez · 08-07-2006, 04:56 PM

Saddam tapes? Care to elaborate?

ballz2wallz · 08-08-2006, 01:00 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

Saddam tapes? Care to elaborate?

a month or so ago there were tapes that were released that contained recordings of saddam, many of which talked about their weapons programs that they continued to hide from the UN, etc. much of it is obvious...saddam purposefully withheld information from teh rest of the world...weapons programs, etc. that they didn't want anyoen to find out about. much of it was dated to 1995...some to 2000.

it's all over the net.

Kytro · 08-08-2006, 01:27 AM

Saddam Tapes: What They Don't Prove - Newsweek Periscope - MSNBC.com

The tapes were taken without permission from an FBI-run translation center, officials say, and are years old. Two government officials, requesting anonymity because of the sensitive subject, say the tapes in no way prove that WMD stockpiles or programs existed at the time of the U.S. invasion or were moved to another country before U.S. troops arrived.

motivez · 08-08-2006, 05:03 AM

ballz2wallz · 08-08-2006, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by Kytro

Saddam Tapes: What They Don't Prove - Newsweek Periscope - MSNBC.com

EXCLUSIVE: Saddam's Secret Tapes

The tapes also reveal Iraq's persistent efforts to hide information about weapons of mass destruction programs from U.N. inspectors well into the 1990s. In one pivotal tape-recorded meeting, which occurred in late April or May of 1995, Saddam and his senior aides discuss the fact that U.N. inspectors had uncovered evidence of Iraq's biological weapons program — a program whose existence Iraq had previously denied.

you certainly can't post one biased article alone

Nonphixion · 08-08-2006, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

EXCLUSIVE: Saddam's Secret Tapes

The tapes also reveal Iraq's persistent efforts to hide information about weapons of mass destruction programs from U.N. inspectors well into the 1990s. In one pivotal tape-recorded meeting, which occurred in late April or May of 1995, Saddam and his senior aides discuss the fact that U.N. inspectors had uncovered evidence of Iraq's biological weapons program — a program whose existence Iraq had previously denied.

you certainly can't post one biased article alone

But you can post an outdated one. These articles were compiled one after the other.

Your campaign reminds me of another fraudulent excersize err'ing on the side of WMD myths and lies.

YouTube - Iraq Did Have Weapons Of Mass Destruction

Actually, Sada had a cowriter on his book, a right wing extremist named Jim Nelson Black (google him) who is part of several religious extremist groups who do everything from trying to get creationism into the mainstream elementary schools and military recruiters as well.

Anything Sada claims is complete whitewash.

ballz2wallz · 08-08-2006, 09:17 AM

what are you talking about? it's not like one week the tapes have saddam admitting his weapons programs and the next week he's not admitting them anymore. what i posted is true no matter the date. there are hundreds of sites out there that talk about what is on those tapes. what is on those tapes doesn't change from week to week. they are never outdated.

lew · 08-08-2006, 10:17 AM

Who cares?

If he had the weapons, or if he didn't, we still had no right to go in there and subjugate that nation.

lew · 08-08-2006, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

not traces...filled. that alone means that he didn't follow the rules and get rid of the ones he had. whether they could have been used is up for debate, but that in and of itself means he didn't get rid of the ones he had.

But that's not the reason that Bush lead us into Iraq. Bush stated, numerous times, that Saddam had weapons and was ready to use them, even against the United States. Even if Saddam had thousands of fully loaded biological / nuclear weapons, but they were very old, not working, unable to fly, etc, then we still invaded on false reasons. Bush stated simply that Iraq had weapons and was capable of using them immediatly.