xospec1alk
Diamond Member
- Mar 4, 2002
- 4,329
- 0
- 0
just wanted to point out this article in the village voice
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0314/schanberg.php
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0314/schanberg.php
I said that the Kurds are the purported reason for the no fly zone and consequential lack of Iraqi control in the area. I did not say the Kurds were the ones fighting alongside various extremist groups.Your joking right?
The Kurds are the ones that have been attacking the terrorist compounds.
They were in Iraqi government controlled territory, not Kurdish.
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Why is there still doubt Saddam has WMD? He used them, he DECLARED TO THE UN HE HAD THEM AND WHO CONTRIBUTED TO HIS EFFORTS.
He was also REQUIRED to destroy them and PROVE this as well, are you going to suggest he destroyed them, and then "lost" the evidence?
Look at your grammer and see if that makes sense.
Why people doubt Saddam has WMD
He used them, he declared that he had them.
Does what he had before says anything about what he has now? Does what he had before post danger to US, and justify the killing of Iraqis?
Funny what you posted isnt even what I wrote..... nice of you to change my sentence, THEN criticize "my" grammar....lol
Why is there still doubt Saddam has WMD?
Why people doubt Saddam has WMD
not even close
He used them
yes he did, many times.
he DECLARED TO THE UN HE HAD THEM AND WHO CONTRIBUTED TO HIS EFFORTS.
would you like to see a portion of what Saddam submitted?
Are you ignorant or just trying to avoid the question?
My point is, yes Saddam USED WMD in Iran-Iraq war 10+ years ago, and he declared he HAD WMD.
But you are saying Iraq HAS (note: has meaning now) WMD. What does Iraq had before got anything to do with what they have now?
and what part of the resolutions didnt you understand, the BURDEN of proof that they were all gone IS ON SADDAM, if he had met that burden don't you think he would have provided the very evidence that would have saved his a*s????
apparently I'm not ignorant, but I'm quite certain you are uninformed.
WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT HE DOESNT HAVE THEM ANYMORE? WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVING THIS?
Originally posted by: rchiu
and what part of the resolutions didnt you understand, the BURDEN of proof that they were all gone IS ON SADDAM, if he had met that burden don't you think he would have provided the very evidence that would have saved his a*s????
apparently I'm not ignorant, but I'm quite certain you are uninformed.
WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT HE DOESNT HAVE THEM ANYMORE? WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVING THIS?
I am not talking about if Iraq violated any resolution, that's for UN to decide. I am talking about your statement that Iraq HAS WMD because they HAD WMD and they USED WMD. How is that so?
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Where are they then?
Originally posted by: Alistar7
some people are so sure he doesnt, I guess they don't even understand what the inspections were about or what happened already, being aware of the facts you couldn't possibly suggest anything else.
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: Alistar7
some people are so sure he doesnt, I guess they don't even understand what the inspections were about or what happened already, being aware of the facts you couldn't possibly suggest anything else.
I am not sure if he does or does not have WMD. But one fact I know, UN weapon inspector has not found any before the war started.
What I am curious about is, what make you so sure that they have WMD?
I just thought before we go into someone's country and kill thousands of men, women and children, maybe we should have at least something to comfirm what we think Saddam has that endanger us? If this war if really about WMD, maybe the government should let us know how they arrived at the conclusion that Iraq has WMD and is endangering us PRIOR to the war?
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: Alistar7
some people are so sure he doesnt, I guess they don't even understand what the inspections were about or what happened already, being aware of the facts you couldn't possibly suggest anything else.
I am not sure if he does or does not have WMD. But one fact I know, UN weapon inspector has not found any before the war started.
What I am curious about is, what make you so sure that they have WMD?
I just thought before we go into someone's country and kill thousands of men, women and children, maybe we should have at least something to comfirm what we think Saddam has that endanger us? If this war if really about WMD, maybe the government should let us know how they arrived at the conclusion that Iraq has WMD and is endangering us PRIOR to the war?
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: Alistar7
some people are so sure he doesnt, I guess they don't even understand what the inspections were about or what happened already, being aware of the facts you couldn't possibly suggest anything else.
I am not sure if he does or does not have WMD. But one fact I know, UN weapon inspector has not found any before the war started.
What I am curious about is, what make you so sure that they have WMD?
I just thought before we go into someone's country and kill thousands of men, women and children, maybe we should have at least something to comfirm what we think Saddam has that endanger us? If this war if really about WMD, maybe the government should let us know how they arrived at the conclusion that Iraq has WMD and is endangering us PRIOR to the war?
Well apparently the UN resolutions that even SADDAM HGIMSELF agreed to that required the bruden of proof to be SOLELY his is not good enough for you, instead you feel the US should have to prove this.
Have you ever read ANY of the interviews from Iraqi scientists? How their daily life was very controlled with regards to time. They were required to spend half their time, 4 hours, developing WMD and delivery systems, the rest of the time was devoted to detrmining how to HIDE them. The same story over and over from people that never worked together knew each other..
Can you possibly understand how someone who violates resolutions he agreed to 333 times might ALSO be hiding things?
If he had destroyed everything he was supposed to, all he had to do was show the UN the evidence, end of inspections, end of sanctions, he stays in power with no international oversight and with the full spending power of the 2nd larget oil reserve in the world.
So you are saying he did destroy them, must have if he doesnt have them, but he didnt keep ANY evidence, guess his own death was more appealing than the above scenario....
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: Alistar7
some people are so sure he doesnt, I guess they don't even understand what the inspections were about or what happened already, being aware of the facts you couldn't possibly suggest anything else.
I am not sure if he does or does not have WMD. But one fact I know, UN weapon inspector has not found any before the war started.
What I am curious about is, what make you so sure that they have WMD?
I just thought before we go into someone's country and kill thousands of men, women and children, maybe we should have at least something to comfirm what we think Saddam has that endanger us? If this war if really about WMD, maybe the government should let us know how they arrived at the conclusion that Iraq has WMD and is endangering us PRIOR to the war?
Well apparently the UN resolutions that even SADDAM HGIMSELF agreed to that required the bruden of proof to be SOLELY his is not good enough for you, instead you feel the US should have to prove this.
Have you ever read ANY of the interviews from Iraqi scientists? How their daily life was very controlled with regards to time. They were required to spend half their time, 4 hours, developing WMD and delivery systems, the rest of the time was devoted to detrmining how to HIDE them. The same story over and over from people that never worked together knew each other..
Can you possibly understand how someone who violates resolutions he agreed to 333 times might ALSO be hiding things?
If he had destroyed everything he was supposed to, all he had to do was show the UN the evidence, end of inspections, end of sanctions, he stays in power with no international oversight and with the full spending power of the 2nd larget oil reserve in the world.
So you are saying he did destroy them, must have if he doesnt have them, but he didnt keep ANY evidence, guess his own death was more appealing than the above scenario....
I asked a simple question: How do you know Iraq has WMD as you so confidently stated? And you give me all these run around about how resolutions is violated, and how he cannot prove he destroyed all.
I am not interest in debating with you if he violates the resolution because I admit I am just an ordinary Joe without expertise in interpreting international law. Maybe you are an expert, I don't know, since you so confidently declare that Iraq violated this and that when UN didn't seem to think so.
I also admitted that I don't know if Iraq has WMD or not, they may or may not. The ones Iraq couldn't accounted for may be expired/used, or maybe hidden somewhere. I don't know.
What I am wondering is, how do you know they have it? You said they have it in your statement, but now you say you don't have to prove they have it. It is two different thing. What are you saying?
By using LOGIC, if he did not have them anymore and could prove it, there wouldnt have been any more inspections, sanctions, he would have been released from oversight and remained in power.
Why wouldn't he prove he didnt have them after agreeing to, when in doing so he would have walked away scot free? Why get rid of them (fully complying to the UN) but not save the evidence?
"I also admitted that I don't know if Iraq has WMD or not, they may or may not. The ones Iraq couldn't accounted for may be expired/used, or maybe hidden somewhere. I don't know."
The problem is THEY couldn't or WOULDN"T account for them, if they were used, where and how much, the inspectors can test the site and determine if this is true. They expired? Where is the waste? We went through this for 12 years, never a solid answer from them.
Originally posted by: zer0burn
a lot of the missiles fired into kuwait were banned weapons, nevertheless they were in the process of destroying them before the war although they never shouldve even have had them
Originally posted by: rchiu
By using LOGIC, if he did not have them anymore and could prove it, there wouldnt have been any more inspections, sanctions, he would have been released from oversight and remained in power.
Why wouldn't he prove he didnt have them after agreeing to, when in doing so he would have walked away scot free? Why get rid of them (fully complying to the UN) but not save the evidence?
"I also admitted that I don't know if Iraq has WMD or not, they may or may not. The ones Iraq couldn't accounted for may be expired/used, or maybe hidden somewhere. I don't know."
The problem is THEY couldn't or WOULDN"T account for them, if they were used, where and how much, the inspectors can test the site and determine if this is true. They expired? Where is the waste? We went through this for 12 years, never a solid answer from them.
OK, so you are still at the stage of "you think" they have it? Because by definition of by using LOGIC, you are thinking.
All I am asking is if you know for a fact that Iraq has WMD. I haven't got a straight answer yet, so I am assuming you don't?
So do you know Iraq has WMD, or do you think Iraq has WMD?
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: rchiu
By using LOGIC, if he did not have them anymore and could prove it, there wouldnt have been any more inspections, sanctions, he would have been released from oversight and remained in power.
Why wouldn't he prove he didnt have them after agreeing to, when in doing so he would have walked away scot free? Why get rid of them (fully complying to the UN) but not save the evidence?
"I also admitted that I don't know if Iraq has WMD or not, they may or may not. The ones Iraq couldn't accounted for may be expired/used, or maybe hidden somewhere. I don't know."
The problem is THEY couldn't or WOULDN"T account for them, if they were used, where and how much, the inspectors can test the site and determine if this is true. They expired? Where is the waste? We went through this for 12 years, never a solid answer from them.
OK, so you are still at the stage of "you think" they have it? Because by definition of by using LOGIC, you are thinking.
All I am asking is if you know for a fact that Iraq has WMD. I haven't got a straight answer yet, so I am assuming you don't?
So do you know Iraq has WMD, or do you think Iraq has WMD?
Get it through your head. Nobody has to prove that Saddam has WMD. Saddam has to prove he doesn't have them by accounting for all the WMD he had and possible still has. If he can't then it is reasonable to assume he still has them.
Originally posted by: lozina
Ok Iraq has used missiles banned because their "allowable range as deemed by the USA" was exceeded by a slight 3%. Now how about America's usage of banned and controversial weapons?
- Depleted Uranium Shells/Bombs
Napalm
Cluster Bombs
Anti-personnel Mines
Originally posted by: Morph
Forgetting about arguing with Alistar. He only hears what he wants to hear.
He continues to argue that because Saddam's regime has used chemical weapons in the past and admitted to once manufacturing anthrax, that this is sufficient proof that these WMD still exist. He continues to insist these things even though so many have pointed out to him how grossly flawed this logic is. Let me say it again, AListar:
Just because these WMD are known to have existed in the past, that does not necessarily mean that they exist at present.
It may be highly probable that they exist. You might say that the chances are 99.9% that they exist, if that's your opinion, but you cannot state it with 100% certainty until they are actually found.
I know you are smart enough to understand this, so please stop allowing your mind to be clouded with emotion.