• 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
Originally Posted by Goobieman
Except for those people that didn't think he lied in the first place.
This is true too. But it has nothing to do with my statement that was made within the context of the poll.
 
Billo_Really said:
This is true too. But it has nothing to do with my statement that was made within the context of the poll.

So, why do you suppose people that presently think he lied will not think he did not lie if Iraqi WMDs are found in Syria??
 
Originally Posted by Goobieman
So, why do you suppose people that presently think he lied will not think he did not lie if Iraqi WMDs are found in Syria??
Your using a double-negative in the sentence. Re-phrase the question.
 
Billo_Really said:
Your using a double-negative in the sentence.
Deliberately. It asks exactly what I want it to ask.
But, if you need the help to better understand the question:

People who think Bush lied about the WMDs will still think he lied if they are found in Syria. Why do you suppose that is?
 
Originally Posted by Goobieman
Deliberately. It asks exactly what I want it to ask.
But, if you need the help to better understand the question:

People who think Bush lied about the WMDs will still think he lied if they are found in Syria. Why do you suppose that is?
That's an extreme hypothetical. We should discuss that when (or if) we cross that bridge. I'm not going to think or speak for others. Especially over a subject that hasn't even happened yet. It's all conjecture.

For me, I think Bush lied. If they find Iraq WMD's in Syria (which I doubt they will because they have stopped looking for any at all), then I will change my opinion. But until then, Bush lied like a Son of a Bitch.
 
Goobieman said:
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.

You'd have to prove that the WMDs existed in the first place which would be contrary to the ISG's conclusions. This "hypothetical" is based on a false premise ie that there were wmds to move.


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

You can't proove a negative. There is no evidence of any black market so that is enough.



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

No it doesn't. Theres no evidence of any black market.



Goobieman said:
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?

Again, because theres no evidence of any black market.



Goobieman said:
The Iraqi government was directly involved in all those instances. That's not proof enough for you?

I'm not taking your word for it. Provide proof that Saddam was directly involved.


Goobieman said:
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 --

I never said that Bush should be tried for war crimes. Don't put words in my mouth.


Goobieman said:
but Saddam isnt responsible for what happens in his (totalitarian, dictatorial) government?

George W. Bush's scope of control is not limited to a few square miles.


Goobieman said:
Which is only relevant if the actions drescribed above were taken inside the no-fly zone and involved aircraft.

No, it's relevant if those organizations were operating within the no-fly zone.


Goobieman said:
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?

Hammas didn't attack us on 9/11.





Goobieman said:
1) Thats not a strawman
2) You didn;t answer the question.

1) Yes it is and 2) Yes I did.




Goobieman said:
And that threat would change if we didnt have troops in Iraq?

Well YES because we could have used those troops to invade NK.



Goobieman said:
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?

See above and by the way tell me why having our soldiers hanging out for no apparent reason in Germany is helping anything.


Goobieman said:
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.

The GBI/NMB have been proven to be relatively useless and have never been subjected to real life scenarios.



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

*Shrug* Even if they do have 100 nukes they're not stupid. They wouldn't launch all of them.



Goobieman said:
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

Such exageration. We wouldn't need to buy oil from Iran if we'd stop selling our Alaskan oil to China, Japan, and North Korea. And by the way..what do you think the oil reserve is for?


Goobieman said:
2) It doesmt matter how many refineries you have when there is a shortage of oil.

The problem now is that we're importing more crude than we have the capcity to refine. Having more refineries would drive the cost down and we could make up the loss by doing the above. We don't get that much of our oil from the M.E.


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

I don't think anyone can say for sure. OPEC would probably pump out more to make up for the loss..it's not like we need oil from Iran.
 
Goobieman said:
Deliberately. It asks exactly what I want it to ask.
But, if you need the help to better understand the question:

People who think Bush lied about the WMDs will still think he lied if they are found in Syria. Why do you suppose that is?
Huh? Quite an absurd example, sorry. Tell you what, when you find these mythical WMDs let's talk?

BTW - This guy's BS story has been debunked, what a surprise! Turns out that he's been Pro-American since the early 1990s and was not even in Iraq through the 90s.....But hey, he's creditable, right? So creditable that some people in this community believe him over any other evidence to the contrary...isn't the term "wishful thinking."
 
26 X World Champs said:
BTW - This guy's BS story has been debunked, what a surprise! Turns out that he's been Pro-American since the early 1990s and was not even in Iraq through the 90s.....But hey, he's creditable, right? So creditable that some people in this community believe him over any other evidence to the contrary...isn't the term "wishful thinking."

Oh? Do you have a link or something to substantiate that?
 
akyron said:
Perhaps he is ignoring you. How do you tell if you are on someone ignore list?

Ah, he's been ignoring me since shortly after "The Great Monkeys Fiasco" when he told me he never had nor would ever go to the TT thread. Wasn't ten minutes later I saw him there in the "Who's Online" window. You know how when in a thread you don't see the posts made while you are in that thread unless you do something or hit refresh? Well ol champs spent a good 40 minutes in that thread that night. While he was there I kept making new posts and changing my sig explaining the deal. Sort of a play by play. "Champs is still there, go look, he still has no idea what's gong on", and on and on. He hasn't responded to me since. I just like jerking his chain now and then just in case he comes out for a look. Remember telling on me champs?

It's probably not a good idea to let an ignoree know who has put them on their ignore list. For instance if I knew it would become a small hobby to just follow them around and post right after they did with all kinds of insane (as opposed to my normal very sane) stuff. Oh what fun that would be.

Speaking of monkeys, are people still arguing about this WMD thing? We know he had them, we know who sold them the stuff to make them, he used them, we found 100+ sites where they were in Iraq, there were convoys going to Syria, it just doesn't take a genius to figure this out. But then if you have your "I hate Bush the liar" head stuck so far up you own ass so as to be removed from all logical reality, I can see how it can happen.

The real question I think that still remains that I asked this site over a year ago is, why did Bush say he didn't have them when he knows full well he damn did? Then after years Syria pulls out of Lebanon for no apparent reason. You people need to get your own ideas and quit aping the talking heads and politicians.

What's "The Great Monkey Fiasco" you newbies wonder? Glad you asked.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=35936&postcount=57
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=35938&postcount=58
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=35939&postcount=59

Come on out and play champs.
 
Originally posted by teacher:
Ah, he's been ignoring me since shortly after "The Great Monkeys Fiasco" when he told me he never had nor would ever go to the TT thread. Wasn't ten minutes later I saw him there in the "Who's Online" window. You know how when in a thread you don't see the posts made while you are in that thread unless you do something or hit refresh? Well ol champs spent a good 40 minutes in that thread that night. While he was there I kept making new posts and changing my sig explaining the deal. Sort of a play by play. "Champs is still there, go look, he still has no idea what's gong on", and on and on. He hasn't responded to me since. I just like jerking his chain now and then just in case he comes out for a look. Remember telling on me champs?

It's probably not a good idea to let an ignoree know who has put them on their ignore list. For instance if I knew it would become a small hobby to just follow them around and post right after they did with all kinds of insane (as opposed to my normal very sane) stuff. Oh what fun that would be.

Speaking of monkeys, are people still arguing about this WMD thing? We know he had them, we know who sold them the stuff to make them, he used them, we found 100+ sites where they were in Iraq, there were convoys going to Syria, it just doesn't take a genius to figure this out. But then if you have your "I hate Bush the liar" head stuck so far up you own ass so as to be removed from all logical reality, I can see how it can happen.

The real question I think that still remains that I asked this site over a year ago is, why did Bush say he didn't have them when he knows full well he damn did? Then after years Syria pulls out of Lebanon for no apparent reason. You people need to get your own ideas and quit aping the talking heads and politicians.

What's "The Great Monkey Fiasco" you newbies wonder? Glad you asked.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpo...6&postcount=57
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpo...8&postcount=58
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpo...9&postcount=59

Come on out and play champs.
In an age of technologically advanced satellite imagery, how come we have not seen any photo's of the convoy into Syria?
 
Billo_Really said:
That's an extreme hypothetical. We should discuss that when (or if) we cross that bridge. I'm not going to think or speak for others. Especially over a subject that hasn't even happened yet. It's all conjecture.

Does that work on people sometimes Billo?

Let's use your logic. You don't like to talk about a subject that hasn't happened yet. But you are more than happy to preach doom and gloom about Iraq. Which hasn't happened yet. Quite the opposite is in effect. Women are voting. Quagmire has turn into a sour word in the liberals mouths. No more attacks in the US has happened yet. You know in fact, nothing but everything going very well in this war and just about according to plan does not stop you libs from opining on how terrible this will turn out. This quagmire hasn't happened yet but you all are very willing to talk about it. You can't milk a camel without getting fleas Billo.


For me, I think Bush lied. If they find Iraq WMD's in Syria (which I doubt they will because they have stopped looking for any at all), then I will change my opinion. But until then, Bush lied like a Son of a Bitch.

Okay, let's play a little. Those mobile chemical weapon production vehicles the Germans sold Saddam, where did they go?
 
Billo_Really said:
In an age of technologically advanced satellite imagery, how come we have not seen any photo's of the convoy into Syria?

For the same reason that Bush said there weren't any WMD's.

Here's how I think it might have gone.

Syria get's the WMD's. Before they figured out we are serious like about things now. So we have some high level hush hush talks talks with Syria. We tell them, "here's the deal. We'll come take over your backwater camel fuc*k fest you have going on there and treat you just like Iraq. You know we'll do it. You lose your power and money and we free your women. To keep this from happening you have to destroy the WMD's and get your asses out of Lebanon. You get to keep your power and look all nice like for pulling out on your own, and we won't prove to the world that you harbored WMD's for sure which will make even those little wimp ass French hate you." For us we won't have to invade a Muslim run country, (which Iraq wasn't), and really rile up the fanatics for a REAL Jihad, and we won't have to sell to the bleeding hearts in the USA another war for their own good. We get the Syrians out of Lebanon, peace takes a step closer in the Middle East, (which in the final analysis this is all about because they are getting closer and closer to getting nukes and that is just not an option so we have to change them from within, free the women), none of our people die in Syria, in short, we get what we want all for the price of Bush saying there were no WMD's.

W. took one for the team.

This of course is just deductive reasoning on my part. It's the only thing I can figure that would make Bush say there were no WMD's when we all FRIGGIN KNOW there were AND explains Syria's sudden change of heart after years of occupation.

Next level.
 
Originally posted by teacher:
Let's use your logic. You don't like to talk about a subject that hasn't happened yet. But you are more than happy to preach doom and gloom about Iraq. Which hasn't happened yet. Quite the opposite is in effect. Women are voting. Quagmire has turn into a sour word in the liberals mouths. No more attacks in the US has happened yet. You know in fact, nothing but everything going very well in this war and just about according to plan does not stop you libs from opining on how terrible this will turn out. This quagmire hasn't happened yet but you all are very willing to talk about it. You can't milk a camel without getting fleas Billo.
How dare you use the word "opine" in my presence! And how dare you avoid my question. With all the satallites we have up there, if there was a convoy into Syria, why didn't we get any pictures of the event? Especially, in an area of the world we were watching like a hawk. If there was a convoy, and we did get pictures, don't you think they would be all over the news? They [pictures] are not, because there wasn't a convoy into Syria delivering WMD's.

Originally posted by teacher:
Okay, let's play a little. Those mobile chemical weapon production vehicles the Germans sold Saddam, where did they go?
They were destroyed. Didn't you read Hans Blix final report.

I'm not going to say it is all bad in Iraq.
I love seeing pictures like this one.

34994779pitch1jy.jpg


But it is not all good either.
 
Billo_Really said:
In an age of technologically advanced satellite imagery, how come we have not seen any photo's of the convoy into Syria?


Supposedly they flew coach.


"The flights - 56 in total, Mr. Sada said - attracted little notice because they were thought to be civilian flights providing relief from Iraq to Syria, which had suffered a flood after a dam collapse in June of 2002."

Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says

"Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved." -Dr. David Kay , former head of ISG

I would rather see pictures of convoys as well.
Commercial flights should not be impossible to track either.

They were obviously more worried about underestimating Iraqs capabilities than overestimating them. Previous failures at intel gathering charged them up a bit

"Khobar Towers military barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996; nuclear tests by India and Pakistan in 1998; the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000; and, most traumatically, the Sept. 11 attacks."
 
Originally posted by akyron
Supposedly they flew coach.


"The flights - 56 in total, Mr. Sada said - attracted little notice because they were thought to be civilian flights providing relief from Iraq to Syria, which had suffered a flood after a dam collapse in June of 2002."

Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says

"Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved." -Dr. David Kay , former head of ISG

I would rather see pictures of convoys as well.
Commercial flights should not be impossible to track either.

They were obviously more worried about underestimating Iraqs capabilities than overestimating them. Previous failures at intel gathering charged them up a bit

"Khobar Towers military barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996; nuclear tests by India and Pakistan in 1998; the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000; and, most traumatically, the Sept. 11 attacks."
I wasn't talking about flights. I was talking about convoy's.
 
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?

It's alright to be irritable, it's not ok to call names and in general just be a jerk. I mean if you want to debate please do so, if you want to behave like a child please take your act down the road.

You're welcome for the fish, but I thought dolphins were smart.
 
Billo_Really said:
I wasn't talking about flights. I was talking about convoy's.


If the stuff got carried over the border what difference does the mode of transport make?
 
Since there is no centrist option on this issue in the poll I will speak my vote:

• This is pure political speculation.

If there had been WMD that had gone to Syria... it would be the responsibility of a number of taxpayer funded intelligence agencies to be aware of this.

None have been able to provide any substantive evidence of such

If there had been WMD that had gone to Syria.... it would the responsibility of the Commander in Chief to be aware of this.

Our commander in chief has been unable to provide any substantive evidence of such.

Aside from that, when did so many conservative apologists become so open minded.

This isn't a bad poll per se... but the choices offered in response... like virtually any DP quasi-conservative based poll... offer no expression that represents a moderate and/or centrist view. God forbid a scientific, factual, or empirical view.
 
Originally posted by akyron
If the stuff got carried over the border what difference does the mode of transport make?
No stuff went over the border. It is a joke to even think so. Without producing the "stuff" in question, anyone pontificating from this position cannot possibly be taken seriously. What makes this even more ridiculous, the Administration has already admitted to giving up the search because they found none.
 
Billo_Really said:
How dare you use the word "opine" in my presence! And how dare you avoid my question. With all the satallites we have up there, if there was a convoy into Syria, why didn't we get any pictures of the event? Especially, in an area of the world we were watching like a hawk. If there was a convoy, and we did get pictures, don't you think they would be all over the news? They [pictures] are not, because there wasn't a convoy into Syria delivering WMD's.

My little theory in post #87 explains that.

They were destroyed. Didn't you read Hans Blix final report.

The United Nations inspector? The day they submit a report that reads, "teacher is right, France sucks", will be the only thing from the UN I will ever read.
I'm not going to say it is all bad in Iraq.

I just enjoy seeing you say it once in a while.
I love seeing pictures like this one.

34994779pitch1jy.jpg


But it is not all good either.

Questions for you Billo.

Is Iraq better off now than they were under Saddam's rule?

So is the left now saying there never were WMD's in Iraq?
 
Originally posted by teacher:
Questions for you Billo.

Is Iraq better off now than they were under Saddam's rule?

So is the left now saying there never were WMD's in Iraq?
My answer's are as follow's:

  1. I don't know.
  2. Not since 1992.

Who won the fight?
 
Billo_Really said:
No stuff went over the border. It is a joke to even think so. Without producing the "stuff" in question, anyone pontificating from this position cannot possibly be taken seriously. What makes this even more ridiculous, the Administration has already admitted to giving up the search because they found none.


Yow. Who went searching in Syria? I missed that.


Iraqi Scientist tells about WMD

Saddam agents on Syria border helped move banned materials

Ex-spy fingers Russians on WMD
"We wanted to make sure they would never be traced back to us, and we also wanted to frustrate the West by not giving them anything they could make propaganda with"


A senior Syrian journalist reports Iraq WMD located in three Syrian sites


Ex-inspector says Iraq sent 'lot of material' WMD

CIA can't rule out WMD move to Syria

Are you advocating we don't look for them at all or we just don't look for them in Syria? What could it hurt to look besides international relations? We all know those are going just great anyway.

Seems to me there is too much at stake to not look bother looking at all.

If you go by ISG then "ISG analysts believed there was enough evidence to merit further investigation."

Either way nobody had looked and I think teacher touched on a couple of possible reasons why earlier..

To say that no stuff went over the border is incorrect. Even Deulfer and Blix knew something left but they did not know what nor were they allowed to investigate into the matter to their satisfaction.
 
Originally posted by akyron
Are you advocating we don't look for them at all or we just don't look for them in Syria? What could it hurt to look besides international relations? We all know those are going just great anyway.

Seems to me there is too much at stake to not look bother looking at all.

If you go by ISG then "ISG analysts believed there was enough evidence to merit further investigation."

Either way nobody had looked and I think teacher touched on a couple of possible reasons why earlier..
This thread has no merit nor validity until the WMD's in question are produced. End of story.

The Adminstration has publically stated they have given up looking.

That's all I'm trying to say. If they want to keep looking, I for one will not stop them.
 
Billo_Really said:
My answer's are as follow's:

I don't know.

God you suck.

Not since 1992.
Where did they go? Careful here, I smell a trap.

Who won the fight?

It started at 10 Eastern with at least half a dozen fights on the card. Shirley Couture/Lidell is the last one.
 
Originally posted by teacher:
God you suck.
That's not what my mommy says.


Originally posted by teacher:
Where did they go? Careful here, I smell a trap.
They were destroyed per the UN Resolutions.


Originally posted by teacher:
It started at 10 Eastern with at least half a dozen fights on the card. Shirley Couture/Lidell is the last one.
Don't call me Shirley.
 
Back
Top Bottom