• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

To people who doubt the existence of WMD's..

Syringer

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
19,333
2
71
Do you honestly think it's illogical to think that a one of the world's most deceptive, evil tyrants would consider hiding and/or destroying something that he would prefer not be found? And that it is in his best interest that they not be found?
 

Zrom999

Banned
Apr 13, 2003
698
0
0
Originally posted by: Syringer
Do you honestly think it's illogical to think that a one of the world's most deceptive, evil tyrants would consider hiding and/or destroying something that he would prefer not be found? And that it is in his best interest that they not be found?
I don't see the problem if he destroyed it. Isn't that what he was supposed to do in the first place. You make no sense.
 

dabuddha

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
19,580
16
81
Originally posted by: Zrom999
Originally posted by: Syringer
Do you honestly think it's illogical to think that a one of the world's most deceptive, evil tyrants would consider hiding and/or destroying something that he would prefer not be found? And that it is in his best interest that they not be found?
I don't see the problem if he destroyed it. Isn't that what he was supposed to do in the first place. You make no sense.
Yeah he was but if this is the case, then the war was required and justified cause that's what it took to get him to do it.
 

IamDavid

Diamond Member
Sep 13, 2000
5,863
10
81
Originally posted by: dabuddha
Originally posted by: Zrom999
Originally posted by: Syringer
Do you honestly think it's illogical to think that a one of the world's most deceptive, evil tyrants would consider hiding and/or destroying something that he would prefer not be found? And that it is in his best interest that they not be found?
I don't see the problem if he destroyed it. Isn't that what he was supposed to do in the first place. You make no sense.
Yeah he was but if this is the case, then the war was required and justified cause that's what it took to get him to do it.

Hey, don't say that. Thats common sense. You FOOL..
:p
 

Zrom999

Banned
Apr 13, 2003
698
0
0
Originally posted by: dabuddha
Originally posted by: Zrom999
Originally posted by: Syringer
Do you honestly think it's illogical to think that a one of the world's most deceptive, evil tyrants would consider hiding and/or destroying something that he would prefer not be found? And that it is in his best interest that they not be found?
I don't see the problem if he destroyed it. Isn't that what he was supposed to do in the first place. You make no sense.
Yeah he was but if this is the case, then the war was required and justified cause that's what it took to get him to do it.
Not if it was done before the war. Remember that Iraq was in the process of dismantling its al-Samoud missile system (said to be prohibitted by the UN) before the war. That didn't prevent them from using the few that remained against the US. If the illegal weapons existed I'm sure an "evil tyrant" would have used them against the invaders if he had them. If those weapons were destroyed before the war there was no justification at all.
 

dabuddha

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
19,580
16
81
Originally posted by: Zrom999
Originally posted by: dabuddha
Originally posted by: Zrom999
Originally posted by: Syringer
Do you honestly think it's illogical to think that a one of the world's most deceptive, evil tyrants would consider hiding and/or destroying something that he would prefer not be found? And that it is in his best interest that they not be found?
I don't see the problem if he destroyed it. Isn't that what he was supposed to do in the first place. You make no sense.
Yeah he was but if this is the case, then the war was required and justified cause that's what it took to get him to do it.
Not if it was done before the war. Remember that Iraq was in the process of dismantling its al-Samoud missile system (said to be prohibitted by the UN) before the war. That didn't prevent them from using the few that remained against the US. If the illegal weapons existed I'm sure an "evil tyrant" would have used them against the invaders if he had them. If those weapons were destroyed before the war there was no justification at all.

Two things.
1) He was talking about after the war not before (AFAIK)
2) It's true he would most likely use them on the "invaders" but maybe he was unable to?
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: Zrom999
Originally posted by: dabuddha
Originally posted by: Zrom999
Originally posted by: Syringer
Do you honestly think it's illogical to think that a one of the world's most deceptive, evil tyrants would consider hiding and/or destroying something that he would prefer not be found? And that it is in his best interest that they not be found?
I don't see the problem if he destroyed it. Isn't that what he was supposed to do in the first place. You make no sense.
Yeah he was but if this is the case, then the war was required and justified cause that's what it took to get him to do it.
Not if it was done before the war. Remember that Iraq was in the process of dismantling its al-Samoud missile system (said to be prohibitted by the UN) before the war. That didn't prevent them from using the few that remained against the US. If the illegal weapons existed I'm sure an "evil tyrant" would have used them against the invaders if he had them. If those weapons were destroyed before the war there was no justification at all.
If you look into more deelpy, you'll find out they were still building Al-Samoud Missles as they were destroying them.
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,850
0
0
Originally posted by: Syringer
Do you honestly think it's illogical to think that a one of the world's most deceptive, evil tyrants would consider hiding and/or destroying something that he would prefer not be found? And that it is in his best interest that they not be found?
You missed the point here. It doesn't matter if you and I THINK if Iraq has WMD or not, it is POSSIBLE that Iraq has WMD, and is waiting somewhere to be found. The problem is, the administration said that Iraq HAS WMD, and they know for a fact that Iraq is a threat to US. That's is the reason we spent billions of dollar, lost hundred of service men and women, and killed thousands of Iraqis to make sure we eliminated the threat.

We are talking about invading a country and sacrificing lives here, we better have cold hard fact to backup our actions. If what the Administration said was NOT a fact but just speculation, and if the Administration for whatever reason presented speculations as facts, it is wrong.

If the Administrations knew for a fact that Iraq has WMD, they should have either seen it, have indisputable documentation of where it is, or have someone come out and said he/she had produced it and pointed out when and where. With that information, it does not take 8 weeks to go to a known location and recover known items, without disruptions from Iraqi government. How do you explain that we have not seen any trace of WMD that we already know existed? What does that say about the Administration's claim of knowing for a fact Iraq has WMD, and I stress KNOWING and not THINKING they know.
 

AnImuS

Senior member
Sep 28, 2001
939
0
0
Originally posted by: Zrom999
Originally posted by: dabuddha
Originally posted by: Zrom999
Originally posted by: Syringer
Do you honestly think it's illogical to think that a one of the world's most deceptive, evil tyrants would consider hiding and/or destroying something that he would prefer not be found? And that it is in his best interest that they not be found?
I don't see the problem if he destroyed it. Isn't that what he was supposed to do in the first place. You make no sense.
Yeah he was but if this is the case, then the war was required and justified cause that's what it took to get him to do it.
Not if it was done before the war. Remember that Iraq was in the process of dismantling its al-Samoud missile system (said to be prohibitted by the UN) before the war. That didn't prevent them from using the few that remained against the US. If the illegal weapons existed I'm sure an "evil tyrant" would have used them against the invaders if he had them. If those weapons were destroyed before the war there was no justification at all.
"If the illegal weapons existed I'm sure an "evil tyrant" would have used them against the invaders if he had them."

1. Well i think your wrong there... It does no good to fire bio/chem weapons at an invading army when they have bio\chem suits to protect them..
2. Lastly it makes more sense for him to destroy them with enough time which he had or hide them very well... Just to prove he supposedly didn't have them... Which in November all U.N. members agreed he had them...
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,905
10
81
If you look into more deelpy, you'll find out they were still building Al-Samoud Missles as they were destroying them.
I might believe that if you cited a source.

2) It's true he would most likely use them on the "invaders" but maybe he was unable to?
If he was unable to use them, then how did he manage to hide them?

Rumsfeld says he thinks they destroyed them before the war: http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/29/wirq129.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/05/29/ixnewstop.html. We insisted that Saddam prove he destroyed them, so I think we should be held to the same standard - if we can't prove he destoyed them, then they didn't exist. :) We should at least be able to find some sign of them being destroyed... 500 tons of chemical weapons don't just disappear into thin air. You may be content with believing everything the government and the media tells you, but I'd rather see some reliable proof that they existed. Is that too much to ask?

I can't say with certainty that they didn't exist, but you can't say with any certainty that they did exist. What I do know is this:
a. Saddam has no way of mounting a military attack on the United States. His best bet would be through terrorists.
b. If Saddam wanted to sell or give WMDs to terrorists, he's had the last 12 years (or longer even) to do so. This war did nothing to prevent that.
c. Saddam would rather use whatever weapons he might have against Israel, not the United States. He only dislikes us because we stopped him from taking over Kuwait and bombing Israel in 1991. It would have been far easier for him to use his WMDs against Israel than against the U.S., yet he never did so. Hmmmmm...
 

Zrom999

Banned
Apr 13, 2003
698
0
0
Originally posted by: mugsywwiii
If you look into more deelpy, you'll find out they were still building Al-Samoud Missles as they were destroying them.
I might believe that if you cited a source.

2) It's true he would most likely use them on the "invaders" but maybe he was unable to?
If he was unable to use them, then how did he manage to hide them?

Rumsfeld says he thinks they destroyed them before the war: http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/29/wirq129.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/05/29/ixnewstop.html. We insisted that Saddam prove he destroyed them, so I think we should be held to the same standard - if we can't prove he destoyed them, then they didn't exist. :) We should at least be able to find some sign of them being destroyed... 500 tons of chemical weapons don't just disappear into thin air. You may be content with believing everything the government and the media tells you, but I'd rather see some reliable proof that they existed. Is that too much to ask?

I can't say with certainty that they didn't exist, but you can't say with any certainty that they did exist. What I do know is this:
a. Saddam has no way of mounting a military attack on the United States. His best bet would be through terrorists.
b. If Saddam wanted to sell or give WMDs to terrorists, he's had the last 12 years (or longer even) to do so. This war did nothing to prevent that.
c. Saddam would rather use whatever weapons he might have against Israel, not the United States. He only dislikes us because we stopped him from taking over Kuwait and bombing Israel in 1991. It would have been far easier for him to use his WMDs against Israel than against the U.S., yet he never did so. Hmmmmm...
Good points.:D
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
<<2. Lastly it makes more sense for him to destroy them with enough time which he had or hide them very well... Just to prove he supposedly didn't have them... Which in November all U.N. members agreed he had them...>>

I'm not following you. How exactly would destroying them, instead of using them, make more sense for him?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,965
3,755
126
I'm not following you. How exactly would destroying them, instead of using them, make more sense for him?
-----------------------------
That's easy, he wanted to help out the Bush rationalizers who pathetically need any absurd idea they can think of to explain the missing weapons.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
23,003
770
126
Originally posted by: Syringer
Do you honestly think it's illogical to think that a one of the world's most deceptive, evil tyrants would consider hiding and/or destroying something that he would prefer not be found? And that it is in his best interest that they not be found?
Oh, i agree, i think Bush has a few classified documents that he doesn't want the public to know about ;)
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,383
5,383
126
Originally posted by: mugsywwiiiWe insisted that Saddam prove he destroyed them, so I think we should be held to the same standard - if we can't prove he destoyed them, then they didn't exist.
read me
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Do you mean the WMD near DC or the WMD Rumsfeld claimed was near Tikrit? We found the former . . . it's the latter that's causing us trouble.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,824
0
76
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: Syringer
Do you honestly think it's illogical to think that a one of the world's most deceptive, evil tyrants would consider hiding and/or destroying something that he would prefer not be found? And that it is in his best interest that they not be found?
Oh, i agree, i think Bush has a few classified documents that he doesn't want the public to know about ;)
Absolutely.

 

rbV5

Lifer
Dec 10, 2000
12,632
0
0
We'd be driving straight to them if it weren't for "protecting" our sources...right? You'll see;)
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,905
10
81
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: mugsywwiiiWe insisted that Saddam prove he destroyed them, so I think we should be held to the same standard - if we can't prove he destoyed them, then they didn't exist.
read me
The link is dead, but from the address I'm guessing you're saying the burden of proof is on him, not us. Well I was mostly being facetious with that comment, I made real points later in the post. But we gained support for the war by saying that we were certain the WMDs were there; we have some obligation to show that they really WERE. And I'm still not sure what proof we want that he destroyed them - a piece of paper saying they did? Pictures? I can't prove I've never smoked pot - how do you want me to prove it? :)

What is your response to the rest of my post though?
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,905
10
81
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: Syringer
Do you honestly think it's illogical to think that a one of the world's most deceptive, evil tyrants would consider hiding and/or destroying something that he would prefer not be found? And that it is in his best interest that they not be found?
Oh, i agree, i think Bush has a few classified documents that he doesn't want the public to know about ;)
Are you saying Bush knows where the WMDs are? Or just that he knows for certain that they're there, just not where. If he knows where they are, he wouldn't be having our military playing hide and go seek all over Iraq, and if he knows for certain that they're there, just not where, he'd be saying that we have reliable intelligence that they're there (without giving details) to take some heat off himself and the CIA, etc. Or maybe that's just me thinking logically...
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Syringer
Do you honestly think it's illogical to think that a one of the world's most deceptive, evil tyrants would consider hiding and/or destroying something that he would prefer not be found? And that it is in his best interest that they not be found?
I'm torn on this because Nixon didn't destroy the tapes... We do have WMD all over the place and the only hidden about them is the silo hatch... Bush and this Iraq thing...

I'll just pass ... maybe.. I'll say maybe..

 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,501
1
81
Originally posted by: Syringer
Do you honestly think it's illogical to think that a one of the world's most deceptive, evil tyrants would consider hiding and/or destroying something that he would prefer not be found? And that it is in his best interest that they not be found?
Your point is moot. Bush et a said theyl had concrete evidence for the existence of weapons of mass destruction.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Syringer - <<Do you honestly think it's illogical to think that a one of the world's most deceptive, evil tyrants would consider hiding and/or destroying something that he would prefer not be found?>>

No, that would not be illogical at all to think that.

Now answer this question. Does the fact that it isn't illogical to think that he may have hidden/destroyed them prove that they are there?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY