• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Iraqi WMDs in Syria?

Would you change your mind if we found Iraqi WMDs in Syria?

  • Nope. I still dont support the war

    Votes: 9 34.6%
  • Yep. I guess Bush really didn't lie

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I already support the war, and this doesnt surprise me.

    Votes: 17 65.4%

  • Total voters
    26

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
Because Iraq did not have any nuclear bombs, it's chemical and biowarfare sites had been obliterated during the gulf war and were never repaired or rebuilt, and it's uranium stockpile had been seized, sealed, and locked up by the ISG and Saddam never tried to gain access to it after that point.
So, your 'evidence' for them not having a black-market connection for WMDs is based on the fact that they had no WMDs.
If they're found in Syria, doesnt this destroy this argument?

Thats a misleading exageration. Saddam didn't sponsor any terrorist organization..he gave money to the families of dead suicide bombers after the fact.
There's no exaggeration at all.

In 1993, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) directed and pursued an attempt to assassinate, through the use of a powerful car bomb, former U.S. President George Bush and the Emir of Kuwait. Kuwaiti authorities thwarted the terrorist plot and arrested 16 suspects, led by two Iraqi nationals.

Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians.

Iraq shelters several prominent Palestinian terrorist organizations in Baghdad, including the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), which is known for aerial attacks against Israel and is headed by Abu Abbas, who carried out the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered U.S. citizen Leon Klinghoffer.

Iraq shelters the Abu Nidal Organization, an international terrorist organization that has carried out terrorist attacks in twenty countries, killing or injuring almost 900 people. Targets have included the United States and several other Western nations. Each of these groups have offices in Baghdad and receive training, logistical assistance, and financial aid from the government of Iraq.

In April 2002, Saddam Hussein increased from $10,000 to $25,000 the money offered to families of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers. The rules for rewarding suicide/homicide bombers are strict and insist that only someone who blows himself up with a belt of explosives gets the full payment. Payments are made on a strict scale, with different amounts for wounds, disablement, death as a "martyr" and $25,000 for a suicide bomber. Mahmoud Besharat, a representative on the West Bank who is handing out to families the money from Saddam, said, "You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue."

Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility in Iraq known as Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html

And in any event, giving money to suicide bombers' families, alone, is supporting terrorism.

And? Thats not evidence that Saddam has anything to do with it. Of course they'd follow us into Iraq.
Its evidence that Iraq is STILL a part of the war on terror NOW.


We're lucky North Korea didn't start firing missiles at our mainland while we were busy playing finger paints in Iraq and toppling a completley inert dictator which posed no threat to us.
Not that they have any (yet).
Of course, as evidenced above, we clearly don't need a NMD...

An all out invasion probably would not be neccessary but I am in favor of taking military action against North Korea, yes.
And we cannot/wont do that, because,...?

No. Iran is not our problem and won't be our problem until they develop sufficient missile technology to reach a U.S. territory. As it stands, Iran is Israel's problem.
I see.
And thew US should stand aside, allowing Iran to nuke Israel and Israel to retalliate in like and kind, because...?
 

earthworm

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
5,728
Reaction score
904
Location
Goldsboro,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
To quote the Nightengale ......We should not have started with Iraq. Iraq did not pose a direct threat to us. North Korea poses a direct threat to us.

Was it not Thomas Jefferson who spoke the words over 200 years ago ... Stay out of foreign conflicts !

An intelligent man would heed this advice...

North Korea poses no threat to us; how can this even be uttered ???
I agree , Iraq was supposedly" easy pickings".. but never posed a direct threat..
The WMD ?? In warfare this can be absolutely anything - a rag, a match, some gasoline..enough mad citizens willing to die for the cause.
For the insane Islamics - nothing more than some box-cutters, no respect for others, and a willingness to die..
Of course, the A bomb is a true WMD, is more "humane"...But what the Iraqi insurgents(and the Islamic terrorists) are doing simply takes more time, of which they have plenty of...

I like that map, too bad the Islamics are too hateful to see it this way..
 

Inuyasha

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Messages
1,510
Reaction score
58
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
earthworm said:
To quote the Nightengale ......We should not have started with Iraq. Iraq did not pose a direct threat to us. North Korea poses a direct threat to us.

Was it not Thomas Jefferson who spoke the words over 200 years ago ... Stay out of foreign conflicts !

An intelligent man would heed this advice...

North Korea poses no threat to us; how can this even be uttered ???
I agree , Iraq was supposedly" easy pickings".. but never posed a direct threat..
The WMD ?? In warfare this can be absolutely anything - a rag, a match, some gasoline..enough mad citizens willing to die for the cause.
For the insane Islamics - nothing more than some box-cutters, no respect for others, and a willingness to die..
Of course, the A bomb is a true WMD, is more "humane"...But what the Iraqi insurgents(and the Islamic terrorists) are doing simply takes more time, of which they have plenty of...

I like that map, too bad the Islamics are too hateful to see it this way..

The problem with North Korea is that while they pose no direct threat to the US they do pose one to Japan and we have mutual defense agreements with Japan.So how do we treat that situation?
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
17
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Goobieman said:
If they're found in Syria, doesnt this destroy this argument?

I'd like to know how you can proove in any way shape or form that wmds found in Syria came from Iraq.

Goobieman said:
There's no exaggeration at all.

Yes there is. You forget that such organizations operated outside of Baghdad's control since the no-fly zone was put in place. We bombed anything that moved that remotley ressembled a military vehicle. How was Saddam supposed to enforce a no terror policy when he couldn't move his troops or vehicles into the no-fly zone? Is there any evidence at all that Saddam supported such organizations? So far all you've shown is that organizations operated inside of Iraq. Well Al Qaeda operates inside of the U.S...does that mean we support them?

Goobieman said:
And in any event, giving money to suicide bombers' families, alone, is supporting terrorism.

No it's not. Saddam didn't finance the attacks therefore it is not supporting terrorism.

Goobieman said:
Its evidence that Iraq is STILL a part of the war on terror NOW.

The U.S. created this insurgency and dragged it with us from Afghanistan.


Goobieman said:
Not that they have any (yet).

Were you sleeping all the way through Clinton's presidency? Maybe you forgot that North Korea launched a test missile which went over Japan and landed off the Alaskan coastline.


Goobieman said:
I see. And thew US should stand aside, allowing Iran to nuke Israel and Israel to retalliate in like and kind, because...?

Because it's not our problem. Anyway, Israel will deal with it long before Iran has such a capability. I'd support loaning them some stratotankers but nothing more. It's time Israel fought it's own battles.
 

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
I'd like to know how you can proove in any way shape or form that wmds found in Syria came from Iraq.
Prove a claim I never made? Sounds like a strawman.
IF the weapons are found... doesnt that destroy your 'proof' that Iraq had no black market contacts for WMD trade?

Yes there is. You forget that such organizations operated outside of Baghdad's control since the no-fly zone was put in place.
Of the oranizations listed in the cite, which of them were out of the control of Baghdad?
Support your claim.

No it's not. Saddam didn't finance the attacks therefore it is not supporting terrorism.
Rewarding the families of suicide bombers -- and therefore giving incentive for others to become suicide bombers -- is supporting terrorism.

The U.S. created this insurgency and dragged it with us from Afghanistan.
The "insurgency" is primarily deposed Ba'thists and Sunnis.
That doesnt change the fact that there are islamofascist terrorists here NOW and therefore Iraq is part of the war on terror NOW.

Were you sleeping all the way through Clinton's presidency? Maybe you forgot that North Korea launched a test missile which went over Japan and landed off the Alaskan coastline.
That doesnt in any way translate to an operational capability, especially in a nuclear context. Thats not to say they won't have that capability (and thus, the most obvious argument for the GBI/NMD), but they dont have it NOW -- so there wasnt any danger of them doing as you suggested.

And in any case -- if they were of a mind to lob a nuke at us, the location of our conventional forces really doesnt matter.

Because it's not our problem.
A nuclear exchange in the ME is everyone's problem.
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
17
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Goobieman said:
Prove a claim I never made?

You illuded to it.

Goobieman said:
IF the weapons are found... doesnt that destroy your 'proof' that Iraq had no black market contacts for WMD trade?

No because 1) You'd have to prove that the weapons did indeed come from Iraq 2) You'd have to prove that Iraq did have wmd black market and 3) You'd have to provide proof of contacts, transactions, and intent of being involved in a wmd black market with terrorist organizations.


Goobieman said:
Of the oranizations listed in the cite, which of them were out of the control of Baghdad? Support your claim.

Read page 61 of the 9/11 Commission report to get a better idea.



Goobieman said:
Rewarding the families of suicide bombers -- and therefore giving incentive for others to become suicide bombers -- is supporting terrorism.

The U.S. did more to support Hammas than Saddam ever did.



Goobieman said:
The "insurgency" is primarily deposed Ba'thists and Sunnis.

Which gets additional men from where? Which gets arms and amunition and funding from where? I want you to say it.

Goobieman said:
That doesnt change the fact that there are islamofascist terrorists here NOW and therefore Iraq is part of the war on terror NOW.


Such a strawman. The administration couldn't establish a solid relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda so they created one after the fact.


Goobieman said:
That doesnt in any way translate to an operational capability, especially in a nuclear context. Thats not to say they won't have that capability (and thus, the most obvious argument for the GBI/NMD), but they dont have it NOW -- so there wasnt any danger of them doing as you suggested.

The North Koreans do have a chemical and biological weapons stockpile which is even more dangerous than a nuke.


Goobieman said:
And in any case -- if they were of a mind to lob a nuke at us, the location of our conventional forces really doesnt matter.

And herein lies the hypocricy. You want to go in after Saddam who doesn't have the capability yet you're willing to lose x amount of lives in an attack on our mainland before attacking North Korea which does have the capability to launch such an attack.



Goobieman said:
A nuclear exchange in the ME is everyone's problem.

Not really..the nuclear weapons they're building are quite crude compared to our own. I'd say Russia "losing" several of it's nuclear warheads from it's arsenal is a bigger problem.
 

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
You illuded to it.
Please see the 1st post and the attached poll. I aluded to nothing; I was speaking in context of the topic.

No because 1) You'd have to prove that the weapons did indeed come from Iraq
The phrase "if Iraqi WMDs are found in Syria" presumes this. Don't argue the givem

2) You'd have to prove that Iraq did have wmd black market
YOU claimed that there was no contact with the black market, and that this lack of contact was the reason Iraq was not a threat.
YOU claimed that the proof of this was that there were no WMDs to for Iraq put on the black market.
IF there were WMDs that could have gone on the black market, how do you then support your claim that there were no contact w/ said market?

3) You'd have to provide proof of contacts, transactions, and intent of being involved in a wmd black market with terrorist organizations.
See (2), above.

Read page 61 of the 9/11 Commission report to get a better idea.
So, you dont have any way to show that the instances in the citation I reported were outside baghdad's control. So much for that point.

The U.S. did more to support Hammas than Saddam ever did.
I'll take that as a concession of the point.

Which gets additional men from where? Which gets arms and amunition and funding from where? I want you to say it.
In the context of islamofascist terrorist operating in Iraq, thereby showing that Iraq is NOW a part of the war on terror -- why does it matter where the Insurgency gets anything?

Such a strawman. The administration couldn't establish a solid relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda so they created one after the fact.
How is citing the fact that the present Islamofascist presence in Iraq is part of the war on terrorm a strawman?

The North Koreans do have a chemical and biological weapons stockpile which is even more dangerous than a nuke.
OK... and?
You're admitting that NK could not deliver a nuke, as you suggested, and so you're re-characterizing the threat?

And herein lies the hypocricy. You want to go in after Saddam who doesn't have the capability yet you're willing to lose x amount of lives in an attack on our mainland before attacking North Korea which does have the capability to launch such an attack.
Where do you get the idea that I'm willing to let NK attack us before we do something to keep them from doing so?

Not really.
really.
So...
-Iran lobs a nuke or two into Israel, virtually destroying the country.
-Israel sends 100 or so over to Iran, virtually destroying the country, especially its ability to produce oil.

Don't you think that just the effect on the world's oil supply and (especialy) oil prices is something that will be of concern to everyone?
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by Goobieman
How do you come up with that?
The voting results (middle row).
 

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Billo_Really said:
The voting results (middle row).

Ok... and how do you figure that all of the 18 people that voted "I already support the war, and this doesnt surprise me." thought he was lying?
 

Inuyasha

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Messages
1,510
Reaction score
58
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
As far as the WMD's go we, the people, do not really know anything. But enough people both from the administration and the opposition have prove ed (so far) and said there are none in Iraq. To say that they are in Syria, in Iran or sold on the black market is speculation. It may be true but absolute proof is needed before the vast majority of general public will believe it. We were in a sense fooled once and that won't happen twice. We will just have to wait and see.
 

HighSpeed

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
72
Reaction score
1
Location
Chicago, IL
Goobieman said:
So...
-Iran lobs a nuke or two into Israel, virtually destroying the country.
-Israel sends 100 or so over to Iran, virtually destroying the country, especially its ability to produce oil.

If this ever happens, Iran has a better chance on surviving the attack, its mostly mountain ranges. I don't think Israel can send 100 nukes after it gets hit. Israel is already level land to begin with.

After almost 5 yrs, they still havent found it? Maybe the U.S. Govt has its people convinced still exists even though it doesn't.
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by Goobieman
Ok... and how do you figure that all of the 18 people that voted "I already support the war, and this doesnt surprise me." thought he was lying?
I can't make that determination.
 

Saboteur

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2005
Messages
2,315
Reaction score
134
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
/mod mode = Pacridge/
Please don't refer to people as dumbass
/mod mode/

M14 Shooter said:
If we found them - and there's some reason to believe we might - would you change your mind about the war?

Another story regarding their movement to Syria:
http://www.nysun.com/article/26514?page_no=2

There's no option for Nope and I still support the war.

Colin Powell took 'intellegence' to the U.N. and told them that the United States knew "Exactly" where the WMD's were.

Well they weren't there.

How could we possibly now know that they're in Syria?

You're just a warmonging hatefilled jerk who thinks it's cool to kill people because they're brown.

Well let me be the first to tell ya... Jesus was brown too dumbass!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
17
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Goobieman said:
Please see the 1st post and the attached poll. I aluded to nothing; I was speaking in context of the topic.

Read your own posts.


Goobieman said:
The phrase "if Iraqi WMDs are found in Syria" presumes this. Don't argue the givem

You must argue the "given" becuase the "given" is not an established fact.



Goobieman said:
IF there were WMDs that could have gone on the black market, how do you then support your claim that there were no contact w/ said market?

Even IF there were wmds, which there weren't, it doesn't automatically mean that Saddam was selling them on the blackmarket. You have to provide proof that said black market existed, proof that Saddam was interested in said black market, and proof that Saddam had contacts with the black market first.





Goobieman said:
So, you dont have any way to show that the instances in the citation I reported were outside baghdad's control. So much for that point.

Do you have any proof that Saddam was directly involved in those instances?



Goobieman said:
I'll take that as a concession of the point.

No. The no-fly zone was not within the scope of Saddam's control therefore any organizations operating in the no-fly zone were outside Saddam's scope of control. Again, read page 61 of the 9/11 commission report for proof and a further example.



Goobieman said:
In the context of islamofascist terrorist operating in Iraq, thereby showing that Iraq is NOW a part of the war on terror --

Again, this was created by the U.S.


Goobieman said:
why does it matter where the Insurgency gets anything?

:shock: You've got to be kidding! There would be no insurgency if they had no resources to use. I'll let you figure out the rest.



Goobieman said:
How is citing the fact that the present Islamofascist presence in Iraq is part of the war on terrorm a strawman?

Strawman - A person (or in this case a nation and cause) who is set up as cover or a front for a questionable enterprise.




Goobieman said:
You're admitting that NK could not deliver a nuke, as you suggested, and so you're re-characterizing the threat?

No. North Korea has the technology to deliver a nuke..whether or not they have a nuke to deliver is up for debate. It is not a re-characterization of the threat. The threat is their ability to use chemical, biological, or nuclear warheads to target a U.S. city.



Goobieman said:
Where do you get the idea that I'm willing to let NK attack us before we do something to keep them from doing so?


Perhaps you should think about what you say before you type it. You basically said that it doesn't matter if NK has the ability to target a U.S. city because of our troop presence in SK. By that logic we never should have invaded Iraq because of our troop presence in Saudi Arabia.



Goobieman said:
-Iran lobs a nuke or two into Israel, virtually destroying the country. -Israel sends 100 or so over to Iran, virtually destroying the country, especially its ability to produce oil.

ROFL! Such an exageration! Israel doesn't even have 100 nuclear warheads and even if they did they certainly wouldn't use them all on Iran.


Goobieman said:
Don't you think that just the effect on the world's oil supply and (especialy) oil prices is something that will be of concern to everyone?

No..we only import a small amount of oil from the middle east to begin with and even if your whacked out scenario did take place it could be balanced out by forcing the Big Five to build more refineries here in the U.S.
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally Posted by Napoleon's Nightingale
There's no option for Nope and I still support the war.

Colin Powell took 'intellegence' to the U.N. and told them that the United States knew "Exactly" where the WMD's were.

Well they weren't there.

How could we possibly now know that they're in Syria?

You're just a warmonging hatefilled jerk who thinks it's cool to kill people because they're brown.

Well let me be the first to tell ya... Jesus was brown too dumbass!
Be careful, hurt his feelings too much and he will lobby to have you turned in to the FBI.
 

Saboteur

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2005
Messages
2,315
Reaction score
134
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Billo_Really said:
Be careful, hurt his feelings too much and he will lobby to have you turned in to the FBI.

Hi, just so we don't get Napoleans Nightengale in trouble I'm going to have to take responsibility for my words.

I've been kinda irritable lately and I'm pretty much fed up with the way things are going in the U.S. and these guys living in this fantasy world that this is how our country is supposed to be behaving in the world.

It's just stupid and to think that there are idiots like M14 and Goobboy, or whatever, out there crappin' up the place with their ass breath while blowin' all this hot air about 'I hate liberals because this' and 'I hate people that aren't for this country becoming a theocratic dictatorship with Fascist values because that'. Is just puttin my balls in a salkad shooter if ya know what I mean and I think I'm gonna punch the next Republickdick I see!

Whew... I'll probably get banned so, so long and thanks for all the fish.

And as for the FBI, who do you think I'm watchin' the Super Bowl with?
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
17
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Billo_Really said:
Be careful, hurt his feelings too much and he will lobby to have you turned in to the FBI.


Methinks you've attributed those words to the wrong guy lol.
 

knicksin2010

New member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
Location
NJ, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
If the WMD's were moved to Syria, why didn't we invade Syria? :lol:

If Saddam knew we were going to invade Iraq why would he give his weapons to syria? To make it easier for us to invade Iraq? :lol:

How come our satellites didn’t see the infrastructure springing up in Syria necessary for housing the chemical weapons? :lol:

"The US had no credible evidence that Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction before US led invasion said SOS Condi Rice
Foxnews.com
-US Study: Iraq likely didn't ship WMD's to Syria
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/26/iraq.main/
- Iraq had no WMD program to ship to Syria
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=8211
- Powell: No evidence, not even a motive for Iraq to ship WMD's to Syria
http://www.usembassy.it/file2004_01/alia/A4012101.htm
- US Intel finds no evidence of Iraq shipping WMD's to Syria"
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...0201EST0409.DTL

Mr. Sada and his book vs Powell, Rice, and Kay

Comical :lol:
 

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Billo_Really said:
I can't make that determination.

So... your statement was in error.
 

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Saboteur said:
You're just a warmonging hatefilled jerk who thinks it's cool to kill people because they're brown.

Well let me be the first to tell ya... Jesus was brown too dumbass!

Is this the point where the liberal moderator comes in a quashes one of his own, or will he ignore it because he agrees with you?
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally Posted by Goobieman
So... your statement was in error.
Absolutely not. No one has voted for Bush not lying. My statement was correct.
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally Posted by Saboteur
Hi, just so we don't get Napoleans Nightengale in trouble I'm going to have to take responsibility for my words.

I've been kinda irritable lately and I'm pretty much fed up with the way things are going in the U.S. and these guys living in this fantasy world that this is how our country is supposed to be behaving in the world.

It's just stupid and to think that there are idiots like M14 and Goobboy, or whatever, out there crappin' up the place with their ass breath while blowin' all this hot air about 'I hate liberals because this' and 'I hate people that aren't for this country becoming a theocratic dictatorship with Fascist values because that'. Is just puttin my balls in a salkad shooter if ya know what I mean and I think I'm gonna punch the next Republickdick I see!

Whew... I'll probably get banned so, so long and thanks for all the fish.

And as for the FBI, who do you think I'm watchin' the Super Bowl with?
What! Your not Nappy Night?
Originally Posted by Napoleon's Nightingale
Methinks you've attributed those words to the wrong guy lol.
I must be drunk.
 

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
Read your own posts.
I know what I wrote. Cite me.

You must argue the "given" becuase the "given" is not an established fact.
In a hypothecital, like this topic, you are given certain assumotiuons.
One of those assumptions in this topic is that -Iraqi- WMDs are found in Syria.
In this case, arguing the given is just another way of avoiding the question.


Even IF there were wmds, which there weren't, it doesn't automatically mean that Saddam was selling them on the blackmarket. You have to provide proof that said black market existed, proof that Saddam was interested in said black market, and proof that Saddam had contacts with the black market first.
YOU brought up the black market:
Iraq didn't have a nuclear and bio/chem black market which is known to sell their goods to terrorists. Syria, North Korea, Palestine, and Russia are known to have done this.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=219408&postcount=47

Its YOUR claim that there was no black market, and therefore its up to YOU to prove that's true.

When asked for proof that there was no black market, you replied:
Because Iraq did not have any nuclear bombs, it's chemical and biowarfare sites had been obliterated during the gulf war and were never repaired or rebuilt, and it's uranium stockpile had been seized, sealed, and locked up by the ISG and Saddam never tried to gain access to it after that point. In other words, he had nothing to sell.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=219421&postcount=50

So, finding Iraqi WMDs eliminates your "proof" that Iraq had no black market acsess.

Assumung, as the hypothetical does, that Iraqi WMDs are found, how do you now support your assertion that Iraq had no black market access and therefore wasn't a threat because it sould not nell them?

Do you have any proof that Saddam was directly involved in those instances?
OMFG. You're kidding, right?
The Iraqi government was directly involved in all those instances.
That's not proof enough for you?
:rofl
Remember -- people like you want to put GWB up for war crimes for what happened at Abu Ghraib because he's the President and what the government does is his responsibility -- but Saddam isnt responsible for what happens in his (totalitarian, dictatorial) government?
:rofl

No. The no-fly zone was not within the scope of Saddam's control therefore any organizations operating in the no-fly zone were outside Saddam's scope of control. Again, read page 61 of the 9/11 commission report for proof and a further example.
Which is only relevant if the actions drescribed above were taken inside the no-fly zone and involved aircraft. So, you'll show that to be true -- right?

Again, this was created by the U.S.
That changes the fact that Iraq was involved in terrorism before the war and that it is now currently part of the war on terror...how?

:shock: You've got to be kidding! There would be no insurgency if they had no resources to use. I'll let you figure out the rest.
In other words, you really dont have anythng to say, or you can't back up what you want to say.

Strawman - A person (or in this case a nation and cause) who is set up as cover or a front for a questionable enterprise.
1) Thats not a strawman
2) You didn;t answer the question.


No. North Korea has the technology to deliver a nuke..whether or not they have a nuke to deliver is up for debate It is not a re-characterization of the threat. The threat is their ability to use chemical, biological, or nuclear warheads to target a U.S. city.
And that threat would change if we didnt have troops in Iraq?
Given that those troops cannot stop a NK missile attack, why does it matter where they are, and how would our response to any such attack change if those troops were 'home'?


Perhaps you should think about what you say before you type it. You basically said that it doesn't matter if NK has the ability to target a U.S. city because of our troop presence in SK. By that logic we never should have invaded Iraq because of our troop presence in Saudi Arabia
.
I think you need to take some remedial reading courses.
I never once mentioned South Korea. I said, as noted above, that in any case if they were of a mind to lob a (missile] at us, the location of our conventional forces really doesnt matter.

Tell me why having the 1st Cavalry Division at home in Ft Hood rather than in Iraq would matter one whit if/when NK decides to launch missiles?

Note that the ONLY US asstes that matter in that case is our GBI/NMD installation in AK; you're making a very good case for the necessity of such an asset.

ROFL! Such an exageration! Israel doesn't even have 100 nuclear warheads and even if they did they certainly wouldn't use them all on Iran.
I've seen estimates that Israel has up to 200.

Israel could potentially have produced a few dozen nuclear warheads in the period 1970-1980, and might have possessed 100 to 200 warheads by the mid-1990s. In 1986 descriptions and photographs of Israeli nuclear warheads were published in the London Sunday Times of a purported underground bomb factory. The photographs were taken by Mordechai Vanunu, a dismissed Israeli nuclear technician. His information led some experts to conclude that Israel had a stockpile of 100 to 200 nuclear devices at that time.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/

If so, they very well might use 100 in Iran. They's also likely use a few elsewhere.

No..we only import a small amount of oil from the middle east to begin with and even if your whacked out scenario did take place it could be balanced out by forcing the Big Five to build more refineries here in the U.S.
1) The loss of Iranian oil, and potentially almost all ME oil, will cause a worldwide shortage. A worldwide shortage will drive up the price of oil no matter where it comes from
2) It doesmt matter how many refineries you have when there is a shortage of oil.

What do you suppose a barrel of oil will sell for if the ME supply is cut of from the world? $100? $150?

What do you suppose that would do to the US economy? The world economy?

And you think its not out problem. Thats rather parochial and short-sighted of you -- never miond your wanton disregard for all the people that will be killed.
 

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Billo_Really said:
Absolutely not. No one has voted for Bush not lying. My statement was correct.

Except for those people that didn't think he lied in the first place.
 

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Saboteur said:
Hi, just so we don't get Napoleans Nightengale in trouble I'm going to have to take responsibility for my words.

I've been kinda irritable lately and I'm pretty much fed up with the way things are going in the U.S. and these guys living in this fantasy world that this is how our country is supposed to be behaving in the world.

It's just stupid and to think that there are idiots like M14 and Goobboy, or whatever, out there crappin' up the place with their ass breath while blowin' all this hot air about 'I hate liberals because this' and 'I hate people that aren't for this country becoming a theocratic dictatorship with Fascist values because that'. Is just puttin my balls in a salkad shooter if ya know what I mean and I think I'm gonna punch the next Republickdick I see!

Whew... I'll probably get banned so, so long and thanks for all the fish.

And as for the FBI, who do you think I'm watchin' the Super Bowl with?

You won't get banned - you're a liberal.

And if you can't take the heat - get out of the kitchen.
 
Top Bottom