• 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.

The WMD We've Found Thus Far...

Which of these WMDs found in Iraq demonstrate that Saddam was a WMD threat?


  • Total voters
    13

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
All the WMD and WMD-related infrastructure we've uncovered in Iraq raises the question, how many WMD must we find there before the left accepts that removing a terror-sponsor with a raging hard-on for WMD in a post 9/11 world (especially after 15 years of failed diplomacy) was urgent, necessary and justified.

The Sun Online - News: WMD: Tony Blair was right

USATODAY.com - U.S. transferred uranium from Iraq without U.N. authorization

Boston.com / News / Boston Globe / Editorial / Opinion / Op-ed / The media ignored the real WMD news
 
CIA's final report: No WMD found in Iraq - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com


USATODAY.com - U.N.: Iraq had no WMD after 1994

UNITED NATIONS — A report from U.N. weapons inspectors to be released today says they now believe there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994, according to two U.N. diplomats who have seen the document.

Bush admits no WMDs found, defends Iraq invasion



You know you have denial issues when the President, the CIA and the UN all agree that there were no WMDs and you're still claiming there were.
 
Aquapub, Dick Cheney said himself that there were no WMD. Are you calling him a liar?
 
I call Dick Cheny a Liar.
 
Aquapub, Dick Cheney said himself that there were no WMD. Are you calling him a liar?

Alberto Gonzales also said that mistakes were made in the totally standard firing of 8 federal prosecutors and fumbled his way into a "scandal" where none existed. Nobody ever accused Bush's Administration of being politically competent.

The bi-partisan Iraq Study Group, the mainstream/liberal media are providing evidence that there WERE WMD. You don't have to take my word for it.
 
"Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq," he said.

The operative word being "stockpiles."

These examples are a smokescreen. I'm not arguing that they had a lot of them, just enough to kill thousands, which is plenty to justify removing Saddam.
 

This source is referencing the ISG. That same ISG report concluded:

"We have discovered dozens of WMD-related programme activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the UN.”

"The experts also unearthed secret bio-weapons labs, new strains of lethal diseases, a deadly bug hidden in a scientist’s home — and evidence of possible chemical weapon tests on human victims."

"Saddam Hussein WAS secretly preparing for chemical, biological and even nuclear war."


Nice try.
 
The operative word being "stockpiles."

These examples are a smokescreen. I'm not arguing that they had a lot of them, just enough to kill thousands, which is plenty to justify removing Saddam.


How far do you really want to go with this? The CIA, The President, The UN all say there were no WMDs. You're still claiming they are. Who should I believe?
 
How far do you really want to go with this? The CIA, The President, The UN all say there were no WMDs. You're still claiming they are. Who should I believe?

I've already show that your own sources contradict you or don't say what you're claiming they say.

You should believe the bi-partisan ISG report, the CIA, the president, USA Today, and other mainstream outlets which all confirm what I'm saying.

:mrgreen:
 
I've already show that your own sources contradict you or don't say what you're claiming they say.

Sigh. They contradict me? Do you know how to read? The CIA found nothing. That would mean they contradict your assessment that we did indeed find WMDs.


Again please? You do know what "nothing" means right? Heres the definition

Nothing is the lack or absence of anything.

You should believe the bi-partisan ISG report, the CIA, the president USA Today, and other mainstream outlets which all confirm what I'm saying

Sigh. Yup. The CIA confirmed what you're saying by saying that they found nothing. Amazing.:roll:
 
TheVanguard.Org -- Taking the Fight to MoveOn



Stay tuned :2wave: more to come :2usflag:
 
TheVanguard.Org -- Taking the Fight to MoveOn

Stay tuned :2wave: more to come :2usflag:

Theory without any actual meat. Your source is from 2004. Here is mine from 2005.

No Basis For WMD Smuggling Claims, White House Theory That WMDs Were Removed From Iraq Unfounded - CBS News

 
Sigh. They contradict me? Do you know how to read? The CIA found nothing. That would mean they contradict your assessment that we did indeed find WMDs.

I've already addressed this. It is apparently you who can't read so well.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/19177-wmd-weve-found-thus-far.html#post519539


You are citing misleading headlines, making critical ommissions, and misrepresenting their findings. I am reading the actual documents and finding where the facts contradict you.
 
I'm not arguing that they had a lot of them, just enough to kill thousands, which is plenty to justify removing Saddam.

So instead of Saddam supposedly having the ability to 'kill thousands', we invaded, killed tens of thousands of Iraqis, thousands of our own people, and still didn't get anywhere.

Yeah, that was a good idea, wasn't it?
 
There's not a poll choice that says "the ancient little-boom WMD we found are not the fresh big-boom WMD we were told Saddam had, and that Bush has admitted Saddam did not have."
 
Weapons of Mass Destruction were found....as they would be in virtually any coutry we decided to invade. We likely would find such weapons systems even in Sudan....if we decided to look. Is this sign of the Impending doom we were told aboput before the war?...well....NO. Is this reason to invade a counrty, and watch our own suffer as a result?...well....NO.

Is this reason for 'Ol AquaCon to act like a proud pidgeon....obviously........YES.
 
1. Uranium - The Uranium had been placed in barrels, locked up, and sealed in a storage facility at Tuwaitha by the IAEA in 1992. The IAEA checked it every year to count all of it and make sure it was still there and it was. It wasn't until the United States blew open storage building and the Iraqis starting looting it that anyone other than the IAEA had access to it.

2. 500 artillery shells - As the ISG noted, they were no longer wmd due to the fact that they were degraded to such an extent as to be rendered useless as cw muinitions. They were leftovers from the Iran-Iraq war that Saddam didn't know still existed and had expired decades ago.

3. Botulism - Courtesy of the Reagan Administration. As the ISG noted, Saddam's regime never aquired the technology needed to preserve weaponized biological agents thanks to the sanctions. A vile of botulism is NOT a wmd.

4. Cyanide - Again, not weaponized and therefore not a wmd.

5. Equiptment - Unused by Saddam's regime after 1991.
 
Don't worry, if WMD had been found the Repubs would have plastered it all over the place trying to save their a$$s before the last election where they lost badly.
 
So instead of Saddam supposedly having the ability to 'kill thousands', we invaded, killed tens of thousands of Iraqis, thousands of our own people, and still didn't get anywhere.

Yeah, that was a good idea, wasn't it?

1) There's more to think about here than body count. If we find enough WMD to justify saying Saddam could've killed millions, THEN will it be ok to do something about foreign threats?

Nice logic. :roll:

2) And yes, removing a terror-sponsor with a hard-on for WMD in a post 9/11 world WAS urgent, necessary, and justified to prevent Saddam from murdering thousands of people, even if Iran and Syria responded by orchestrating terrorism campaigns in Iraq that killed thousands of troops and Iraqis.
 
There's not a poll choice that says "the ancient little-boom WMD we found are not the fresh big-boom WMD we were told Saddam had, and that Bush has admitted Saddam did not have."

1) Botulism, Cyanide, Mustard Gas, Uranium (I'm guessing this is relevant to your Kindergarten "fresh big-boom WMD" reference), Sarin gas...all of these things could've been used to kill thousands. All of them justify the war.

2) I never said Bush was a good politician. Much like the Gonzales "scandal" Bush's people have allowed Democrats to invent, it is inexcusable for him not to thrash liberals with so much evidence that it is they who were wrong. Reagan would've destroyed you people with all this evidence.
 

Reagan was the last good president we've had. That being said, Reagan wouldn't have thrashed anyone as he was not a president that relished in using divisive tactics against his own nation.
 
1) Weapons of Mass Destruction were found....as they would be in virtually any country we decided to invade.

2) Is this sign of the Impending doom we were told about before the war?

3) Is this reason to invade a country?

1) Any other country we might decide to invade hasn't been through 15 years of failed diplomacy (failed meaning, Saddam repeatedly expelling inspectors) first, and hasn't been one of the world's most prolific terror-sponsors in a post-9/11 world.

2) A major terror-sponsoring war-monger with WMD in a post 9/11 world (one who had already tried to assassinate one of our presidents and who frivolously fired SCUDS at our nuclear ally-Israel)?

Yes, that's a big f-ing problem.

3) Absolutely.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…