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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
2) It's true he would most likely use them on the "invaders" but maybe he was unable to?
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...
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?
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.
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
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
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
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?
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?