WHy do we keep going around and around on the WMD issue?

[Riprorin]

Just because they haven't been found obviously doesn't mean they don't exist.

This could be in Syria or they could be buried in the desert.

There was cetainly ample reason to believe that they existed.

What if we had done nothing and Islamic nut jobs had gotten WMDs and used them against us. How would you be responding to President Bush then?

 

[arsbanned]

Because it was the reason we ATTACKED IRAQ.
My question is: Why is it some do not see the ramifications of that act?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Just because they haven't been found obviously doesn't mean they don't exist.

This could be in Syria or they could be buried in the desert.

There was cetainly ample reason to believe that they existed.

What if we had done nothing and Islamic nut jobs had gotten WMDs and used them against us. How would you be responding to President Bush then?

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Because it was the reason we ATTACKED IRAQ.
My question is: Why is it some do not see the ramifications of that act?

"Because it was the reason we ATTACKED IRAQ."

Coveniently swept under the rug.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Because it was the reason we ATTACKED IRAQ.
My question is: Why is it some do not see the ramifications of that act?

So? We thought he had them and he may have. Like I said, they may be in Syria, they may be buried in the desert, or he could have destroyed them before the invasion.

 

[fjord]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Just because they haven't been found obviously doesn't mean they don't exist.

This could be in Syria or they could be buried in the desert.

There was cetainly ample reason to believe that they existed.

What if we had done nothing and Islamic nut jobs had gotten WMDs and used them against us. How would you be responding to President Bush then?

Strangely enough I agree that WsMD are a deviation from the main point of sheer corruption of decency.

A policy of unprovoked, pre-emptive war against a foreign nation--is unethical and immoral--and a crime.

That is the main point.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: fjord

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Just because they haven't been found obviously doesn't mean they don't exist.

This could be in Syria or they could be buried in the desert.

There was cetainly ample reason to believe that they existed.

What if we had done nothing and Islamic nut jobs had gotten WMDs and used them against us. How would you be responding to President Bush then?

Strangely enough I agree that WsMD are a deviation from the main point of sheer corruption of decency.

A policy of unprovoked, pre-emptive war against a foreign nation--is unethical and immoral--and a crime.

That is the main point.

That's worthy of debate. The WMD issue isn't.

 

[arsbanned]

So?

OK, seriously, how old are you. If you're 8 I'll be impressed.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Because it was the reason we ATTACKED IRAQ.
My question is: Why is it some do not see the ramifications of that act?

So? We thought he had them and he may have. Like I said, they may be in Syria, they may be buried in the desert, or he could have destroyed them before the invasion.

That's not what Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell, and Rice said before the invasion. They said they knew Saddam had WMDs (stockpiles of WMDs) and they said they knew where the WMDs were.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Because it was the reason we ATTACKED IRAQ.
My question is: Why is it some do not see the ramifications of that act?

So? We thought he had them and he may have. Like I said, they may be in Syria, they may be buried in the desert, or he could have destroyed them before the invasion.

That's not what Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell, and Rice said before the invasion. They said they knew Saddam had WMDs (stockpiles of WMDs) and they said they knew where the WMDs were.

Like the previous poster suggested, you are beating a dead horse.

 

[arsbanned]

Beating dead people is more like it. What about the hundreds of troops killed, not to mention the thousands of Iraqis killed. Based on WMDs. To make it legit, they needed to find them.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Because it was the reason we ATTACKED IRAQ.
My question is: Why is it some do not see the ramifications of that act?

So? We thought he had them and he may have. Like I said, they may be in Syria, they may be buried in the desert, or he could have destroyed them before the invasion.

That's not what Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell, and Rice said before the invasion. They said they knew Saddam had WMDs (stockpiles of WMDs) and they said they knew where the WMDs were.

Like the previous poster suggested, you are beating a dead horse.

Pot, kettle. Kettle, Pot.

One day you'll understand why I replied with that.


Or, perhaps not.

 

[Spencer278]

What if we had done nothing and Islamic nut jobs had gotten WMDs and used them against us. How would you be responding to President Bush then?

What has bush done to ensure that an "Islamic nut job" can't get the WMD that you are so sure are/were in Iraq?

 

[fjord]

You miss the point-- as do so many others: This is the question we should be asking--because it is NOT, I repeat, NOT a hypothetical.

What if we (the population of the US) had done nothing while our own Government nut jobs had gotten WsMD and used them against another country (Iraq) without provocation.

How would you be responding to President Bush then?[/quote]

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

What if we had done nothing and Islamic nut jobs had gotten WMDs and used them against us. How would you be responding to President Bush then?

What has bush done to ensure that an "Islamic nut job" can't get the WMD that you are so sure are/were in Iraq?

My point is that just because we haven't found them doesn't mean they don't or didn't exist. Do you disagree with that?

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Spencer278

What if we had done nothing and Islamic nut jobs had gotten WMDs and used them against us. How would you be responding to President Bush then?

What has bush done to ensure that an "Islamic nut job" can't get the WMD that you are so sure are/were in Iraq?

My point is that just because we haven't found them doesn't mean they don't or didn't exist. Do you disagree with that?

Lets say I agree but what has bush done to ensure that an "Islamic nut job" can't get his hands on a WMD and use it against use.

 

[arsbanned]

*pin drop*

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Just because they haven't been found obviously doesn't mean they don't exist.

This could be in Syria or they could be buried in the desert.

There was cetainly ample reason to believe that they existed.

What if we had done nothing and Islamic nut jobs had gotten WMDs and used them against us. How would you be responding to President Bush then?

"Do you believe in Allah? Why not? He could be hiding in the desert and pop out any second." You're reasoning along the same lines.

"This could be in Syria or they could be buried in the desert."
Same with Allah.

"There was cetainly ample reason to believe that they existed."
A lot of people think there is ample reason to believe Allah exists too, but do you take there word for it?

"What if we had done nothing and Islamic nut jobs had gotten WMDs and used them against us. How would you be responding to President Bush then?"
Those are big ifs. What makes your rhetorical questions problematic is that the ifs don't add up.

"What if aliens had used our earholes to take over our bodies and taken over the world?"
Bush would have looked like a real asshole for not ordering more earplugs. We can all construct hyptheticals where a certain person would look good or bad. Such hypotheticals are only useful if they based in reality. Unfortunately, it appears you have drunk the coolaid so to speak and do not see that your premises are completely flawed.

 

[zephyrprime]

Everyone in Iraq's defense apparatus says the stuff was destroyed or not there to begin with. There's no reason to doubt that they're telling the truth at this point. Heck, I bet if someone were involved with hiding WMDs in Iraq, they would have sold what they knew to us for $20 after Iraq was conquered.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Spencer278

What if we had done nothing and Islamic nut jobs had gotten WMDs and used them against us. How would you be responding to President Bush then?

What has bush done to ensure that an "Islamic nut job" can't get the WMD that you are so sure are/were in Iraq?

My point is that just because we haven't found them doesn't mean they don't or didn't exist. Do you disagree with that?

Lets say I agree but what has bush done to ensure that an "Islamic nut job" can't get his hands on a WMD and use it against use.

We are continuing to look for them. Iraq is a large country, if they are buried in the desert or in a tanker trucks someplace, they could be awfully hard to find.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Spencer278

What if we had done nothing and Islamic nut jobs had gotten WMDs and used them against us. How would you be responding to President Bush then?

What has bush done to ensure that an "Islamic nut job" can't get the WMD that you are so sure are/were in Iraq?

My point is that just because we haven't found them doesn't mean they don't or didn't exist. Do you disagree with that?

Lets say I agree but what has bush done to ensure that an "Islamic nut job" can't get his hands on a WMD and use it against use.

We are continuing to look for them. Iraq is a large country, if they are buried in the desert or in a tanker trucks someplace, they could be awfully hard to find.

So essetial we have done nothing.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Just because they haven't been found obviously doesn't mean they don't exist.

This could be in Syria or they could be buried in the desert.

There was cetainly ample reason to believe that they existed.

What if we had done nothing and Islamic nut jobs had gotten WMDs and used them against us. How would you be responding to President Bush then?

"Do you believe in Allah? Why not? He could be hiding in the desert and pop out any second." You're reasoning along the same lines.

"This could be in Syria or they could be buried in the desert."
Same with Allah.

"There was cetainly ample reason to believe that they existed."
A lot of people think there is ample reason to believe Allah exists too, but do you take there word for it?

"What if we had done nothing and Islamic nut jobs had gotten WMDs and used them against us. How would you be responding to President Bush then?"
Those are big ifs. What makes your rhetorical questions problematic is that the ifs don't add up.

"What if aliens had used our earholes to take over our bodies and taken over the world?"
Bush would have looked like a real asshole for not ordering more earplugs. We can all construct hyptheticals where a certain person would look good or bad. Such hypotheticals are only useful if they based in reality. Unfortunately, it appears you have drunk the coolaid so to speak and do not see that your premises are completely flawed.

My point is simple: the fact that we haven't found WMDs doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Do you agree or disagree?

 

[fjord]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Spencer278

What if we had done nothing and Islamic nut jobs had gotten WMDs and used them against us. How would you be responding to President Bush then?

What has bush done to ensure that an "Islamic nut job" can't get the WMD that you are so sure are/were in Iraq?

My point is that just because we haven't found them doesn't mean they don't or didn't exist. Do you disagree with that?

Do you agree that the Bush administration has demonstrably lied several times in their attempt to bring forward evidence of Iraqi WsMD?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Spencer278

What if we had done nothing and Islamic nut jobs had gotten WMDs and used them against us. How would you be responding to President Bush then?

What has bush done to ensure that an "Islamic nut job" can't get the WMD that you are so sure are/were in Iraq?

My point is that just because we haven't found them doesn't mean they don't or didn't exist. Do you disagree with that?

Lets say I agree but what has bush done to ensure that an "Islamic nut job" can't get his hands on a WMD and use it against use.

We are continuing to look for them. Iraq is a large country, if they are buried in the desert or in a tanker trucks someplace, they could be awfully hard to find.

So essetial we have done nothing.

They are probably a lot harder to use if they are buried in the desert. Sadam's not carrying out any mischief like starting wars with his neighbors, lobbing bombs at Israel, gassing, raping, murdering, and torturing his own people, or invading soverign nations anymore, is he?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: fjord

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Spencer278

What if we had done nothing and Islamic nut jobs had gotten WMDs and used them against us. How would you be responding to President Bush then?

What has bush done to ensure that an "Islamic nut job" can't get the WMD that you are so sure are/were in Iraq?

My point is that just because we haven't found them doesn't mean they don't or didn't exist. Do you disagree with that?

Do you agree that the Bush administration has demonstrably lied several times in their attempt to bring forward evidence of Iraqi WsMD?

Answer my question, and I'll answer yours.

 

[fjord]

My question isn't moot.