• 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.

Saddams WMDs: The Smoking Gun

Paladin said:
Sorry, Dan, it won't change my mind about the "war". I just don't like seeing our young people dying in armed confrontation.
ted

Niether do I, anymore than I liked seeing them die in WW2, WW1, the Civil war and the Revolutionary War. But would you rather have seen the alternative?
 
Goobieman said:
Lets assume that these tapes include:

-Saddam saying that he has WMDs
-Saddam saying that he intends on giving these WMDs to terrorists
-Saddam orders their removal to Syria

The liberal left will STILL oppose the war and STILL call GWB a liar.
Or let's assume that you're wrong....did you know these tapes were recorded 1995 and earlier?

Shame for you how the facts destroy your dream? You just can't accept how wrong Bush was/is, now can you?

Not to mention that there was never any threat against America by Saddam, and that the entire war is a lie? Funny too how a strong majority of Americans agree that Iraq is a colossal blunder...
 
aquapub said:
This tape can only reinforce the already obvious reality that Saddam was a threat, was linked to terror, and that he did have WMD. This tape will change nothing. It already requires such idiocy to look at all the evidence and deny that Saddam was an armed threat. More evidence won't convince people (liberals) who are unaffected by facts and who base their opinions on conspiracy theories.
Oooooh...You can taste you want it so bad...You just can't accept the truth so why not grasp at anything you can, right? Tapes from 1995 & 1996 mean $hit in 2003 and the tape that I heard tonight on ABC was of Saddam's son who later defected to Jordan and told the UN weapon inspectors where the "missing" WMDs were at.
aquapub said:
Remember, this war was about oil, right? Or was it some Freudian need to finish his daddy's work? Or was it a plot to help his Saudi bed mates? Whatever Michael Moore and MoveOn say, right? :roll:

Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.
Pathetic? You're right, your post is exactly that...inaccurate too...
 
Stinger said:
Niether do I, anymore than I liked seeing them die in WW2, WW1, the Civil war and the Revolutionary War. But would you rather have seen the alternative?

Sorry, I can't equate this initiative to those you mentioned. Why did you leave out Korea and 'Nam? :confused:

I am glad we took action in those conflicts, I would hate to be living under the alternatives (Harry Turtledove is a wonder at spinning those types of scenarios).
And as I said above, if it keeps my grandsons living well into their 80's, sign me up, I'll fight.
ted
 
aquapub said:
Even if it is to prevent our civilians dying in New York City streets?
How dare you post lies like this? No way you can prove even slightly that Saddam had anything to do with 9-11 or that he planned any attacks on the USA this century! You're bull******** us and yourself if you really believe the stuff that you write.

Let's get clear on this, shall we? Saddam was never a threat to the USA this century or even after 1996 for that matter. To suggest otherwise is a LIE.
 
Paladin said:
No. I supported Bush completely after 9/11. I applauded when he went into Afghanistan. I don't support his "war" initiatives against Iraq.

ted


Well, if the WMD were real and Saddam was a threat, then what basis could you possibly have for opposing the war?
 
Stinger said:
He was not only as dangerous as we believed he was much more so.

Every indication is that was one of his plans.
Every indication? Really? Is this breaking news? Please share with the world "every indication" that you so liberally (hee hee) used in your post?
 
26 X World Champs said:
1 Oooooh...You can taste you want it so bad...You just can't accept the truth so why not grasp at anything you can, right?

2 Tapes from 1995 & 1996 mean $hit in 2003 and the tape that I heard tonight on ABC was of Saddam's son who later defected to Jordan and told the UN weapon inspectors where the "missing" WMDs were at.

3 Pathetic? You're right, your post is exactly that...inaccurate too...

1 Fact: Saddam had WMD. Fact: Saddam publicly sponsored terrorism. Fact: Saddam invited Bin Laden to Iraq for protection.

Who can't accept the truth?

2 The tapes don't mean crap because for those of us with a shred of sense or integrity, the multitude of evidence against Saddam was already enough to prove him guilty. The tapes only matter because they further prove-on a level simple and obvious enough even for Democrats to connect the dots-that Saddam's regime was, as conservatives have always argued, a terror threat.

3 Your wit is just devastating. Yawn.
 
As an Independent, I should make myself clear: I wholeheartedly agree with the Iraq war. Both sides cited evidence of Iraqi WMDs, therefore we went to war. How many UN resolutions? 12 years? And now only one side is denying what they said. Both sides argue for and against.

My right side says we should bomb everyone in the Sunni triangle.. now.

My left side says we should give them 72 hours warning.

:cool:
 
aquapub said:
Well, if the WMD were real and Saddam was a threat, then what basis could you possibly have for opposing the war?

The taliban and al-quaieda were and are threats. Both were based in Afghanistan. I still wish we could get that dogturd bin Laden.
I haven't seen any compelling evidence that Saddam had WMD's. I haven't seen any evidence that definitively says he didn't have them either.
If it comes out that he did and we have found them, I'll change my mind again. That's still OK with the rep/cons, isn't it? ;) :D
ted
 
aquapub said:
1 Fact: Saddam had WMD. Fact: Saddam publicly sponsored terrorism. Fact: Saddam invited Bin Laden to Iraq for protection.

Who can't accept the truth?
Fact eh? How come you only write "fact" but you don't provide any links to any "facts'"? Saddam invited Bin Laden is my favorite one, not to mention the publicly sponsored terrorism (spare us the suicide bombers in Palestine BS).

You know what Pub? You've got ZERO fact on your side. Saddam was no more a threat to the USA back in 2003 than he is today. Didn't you hear him say this week that he supports the insurgents?

I would love to play poker with you...you ability to be bluffed is monumental.

aquapub said:
2 The tapes don't mean crap because for those of us with a shred of sense or integrity, the multitude of evidence against Saddam was already enough to prove him guilty. The tapes only matter because they further prove-on a level simple and obvious enough even for Democrats to connect the dots-that Saddam's regime was, as conservatives have always argued, a terror threat.
I so enjoy reading this stuff its such an interesting sociological example of blind faith and wishful thinking despite the real truth having been proven indisputably time and time again.

Did you know that pig's can fly and that the cow jumped over the moon?

3 Your wit is just devastating. Yawn.[/QUOTE]
 
Paladin said:
The taliban and al-quaieda were and are threats. Both were based in Afghanistan. I still wish we could get that dogturd bin Laden.
I haven't seen any compelling evidence that Saddam had WMD's. I haven't seen any evidence that definitively says he didn't have them either.
If it comes out that he did and we have found them, I'll change my mind again. That's still OK with the rep/cons, isn't it? ;) :D
ted
Proof has previously been presented...Post #1, 7, & 12...
 
aquapub said:
Quite the contrary. Liberals haven't completely cornered the market on having the stunning capacity to look mountains of evidence in the face and draw the exact opposite conclusion based on nothing more than conspiracy theories.
I see. So Bill Buckley jr changed his mind about the invasion Iraq based solely upon "conspiracy theories."

Interesting theory you have there. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
 
26 X World Champs said:
Every indication? Really? Is this breaking news? Please share with the world "every indication" that you so liberally (hee hee) used in your post?

No it is not breaking, not all some is that only confirms what we already knew. I have cited them to you repeatedly, the Interim Report of the ISG, Dr. Duelfer's final report, the 9/11 commission, the Senate Intelligence Commission. And now we have the documents that are being translated, the tapes ABC is releasing this week, his former second in command of the Air Force and on and on and on.
 

Saddam: I Warned U.S. of Terrorist Attack

Thursday, February 16, 2006
Charles Duelfer, who led the official U.S. search for weapons of mass destruction after the first Gulf War, told ABC News the tapes show extensive deception but don't prove that weapons were still hidden in Iraq at the time of the U.S.-led war in 2003.

"What they do is support the conclusion in the report which we made in the last couple of years, that the regime had the intention of building and rebuilding weapons of mass destruction, when circumstances permitted," he said.
 
Simon W. Moon said:

Saddam: I Warned U.S. of Terrorist Attack

Thursday, February 16, 2006
Charles Duelfer, who led the official U.S. search for weapons of mass destruction after the first Gulf War, told ABC News the tapes show extensive deception but don't prove that weapons were still hidden in Iraq at the time of the U.S.-led war in 2003.

"What they do is support the conclusion in the report which we made in the last couple of years, that the regime had the intention of building and rebuilding weapons of mass destruction, when circumstances permitted," he said.

They don't prove but they don't disprove but does prove he remained a very dangerous threat.

"Kay, Washington's chief weapons inspector and a special adviser to the CIA, leads the 1,200-strong Iraq Survey Group. In an interim report on its first three months of work presented to congressional intelligence committees last week, he said the group had found no chemical, nuclear or bioweapons, but had turned up evidence of a biological program. (Full story)

"We now have three cases in which scientists have come forward with equipment, technology, diagrams, documents and, in this case, actual weapons material, reference strains and botulinum toxin that they were told to hide and that the U.N. didn't find," he said Sunday.

Asked about nuclear weapons, Kay said the team can't prove that Iraq was pursuing them immediately before the war began in March."

NewsMax Sunday, October 5, 2003 Posted: 6:55 PM EDT (2255 GMT)

"What we have said, and we said it in the report, we have numbers of Iraqis who tell us that Saddam was committed to acquiring weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons," he said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer." "And the issue is, how far along was that activity actually before the war?"
 
Paladin said:
Sorry, I can't equate this initiative to those you mentioned.

So you didn't mind them dying in those conflicts?

Why did you leave out Korea and 'Nam? :confused:

Same reason I left out the War of 1812, brevity.



I am glad we took action in those conflicts, I would hate to be living under the alternatives (Harry Turtledove is a wonder at spinning those types of scenarios).
And as I said above, if it keeps my grandsons living well into their 80's, sign me up, I'll fight.
ted

How about if it keeps another 3,000 - 3,000,000 dying because Saddam supplied chemical or biological weapons to a terrorist group? How about it secures a peaceful solution in the Middle East? During the Clinton administration the Iraqi Liberation Act was passed by a nearly unanimous bipartisian majority stating that no matter what we did vis-a-vis inspections and containment and sanctions at some point Saddam would have to be forceably removed and the longer we waited the more difficult that would be.
 
Paladin said:
Sorry, Dan, it won't change my mind about the "war". I just don't like seeing our young people dying in armed confrontation.
ted


You'd rather see our young people dying as they make their way through their mundane lives on American soil or in embassies? Nobody "likes" to see it. Necessity doesn't always present us with favorable action.

This isn't a choice. When the option is us or them...it is always us. The Radical element in the Islamic world throughout the region is determined to be at war with the U.S. for whatever myth they can dig up to explain away their personal and societal failures. These cartoons, in which Iran is blaming America, proves that it doesn't matter what we do. This is a "clash of civilizations" and Iraq was and is involved.
 
Last edited:
Still have not recieved registration verification.
I'll just show up and crash it.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Still have not recieved registration verification.
I'll just show up and crash it.

Just don't wear a Turbin!
 
Back
Top Bottom