Quote:

---

To my knowledge Iraq has never possessed atomic weapons, which are the only weapons of mass destruction. WMD has become an over used term lately. Chemical weapons don't massivly destroy things, they leave structures and inanimate things intact.

---

Quote:

---

Best not to believe either Saddam or Bush but the UN weapons inspectors on the ground

---

Quote:

---

That's a higher percentage disarmament figure than any other country on earth.

---

Quote:

---

Forgive me inny, but you being "pretty confident" doesn't exactly inspire me with confidence

---

Quote:

---

that's basically your entire basis for believing it.

---

Quote:

---

To my knowledge Iraq has never possessed atomic weapons, which are the only weapons of mass destruction.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's a higher percentage disarmament figure than any other country on earth.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


hahahahahaha, i just love how you try to make points out of nothing

---

Quote:

---

What if its true? I doubt you would check. Your dogma might fall off.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

To my knowledge Iraq has never possessed atomic weapons, which are the only weapons of mass destruction.

---

so we should wait til he gets one then??
as i have posted in another thread, there is proof that saddam has been trying to obtain the components necessary to build a nuke.

---

Quote:

---

ok, to all of you out there who are opposed to this war, do you believe saddam when he says he has no WMD, or Bush when he says saddam does?

---

Quote:

---

, do you believe saddam when he says he has no WMD, or Bush when he says saddam does?

---

Quote:

---

Any chemical weapons he had 10 years ago would no longer be usable anyway.

---

Quote:

---

do you believe saddam when he says he has no WMD

---

Quote:

---

it's common sense when you look at the evindence

---

Quote:

---

flow said:
ok, to all of you out there who are opposed to this war, do you believe saddam when he says he has no WMD, or Bush when he says saddam does?
I ask this, because he obviously does, it's common sense when you look at the evindence.  True, the US has not presented much new evidence of WMD, but are these stockpiles really that difficult to hide in a country where more than a third of the land is uninhabited?? Do you think it is really that difficult for saddam to delay, trick, and confuse inspectors enough to move these weapons to a different location?? NO.  Not at all.  That is why the call for the US to provide more evidence of WMD is stupid.  According to inspectors saddam has not provided enough evidence that he has none.  Who lost the last war?? So why doesn't the burden of proof fall on Saddam?? That's what the inspections were supposed to be about in the first place.
By the way if you really do believe Saddam has no WMD, please at least eductae yourself on the subject, the best, and perhaps scariest book i have read on the subject is:
Saddams Bombmaker: The Terrifying Inside Story of the Iraqi Nuclear and Biological Weapons Agenda
by: Dr.Khidhir Hamza
he was the head of the iraqi nuclear weapons development for two decades, and has arguably the most inside knowledge of saddam's weapons systems, as well as he method of rule.  This book would give me nightmares if i lived in Kuwait, Israel, etc...
   

---

Quote:

---

Alex123 said:
Bump for old times sake. Funnily enough an awful lot of the pre-war posts by neocons confidently stating that Iraq had WMD seem to be "gone missing" themselves..rather like the WMD...

We were all wrong, says ex-weapons inspector

Simon Jeffery and agencies
Thursday January 29, 2004

The former head of the US weapons inspection teams in Iraq has said "we were almost all wrong" in believing before the war that Saddam Hussein had chemical or biological arms.
David Kay, who last week resigned from the Iraq Survey Group, told a Senate hearing yesterday that failures had become too apparent in the US's intelligence-gathering capabilities.

"Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here," he said.

"I believe that the effort that has been directed to this point has been sufficiently intense that it is highly unlikely that there were large stockpiles of deployed militarised chemical and biological weapons there."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1134290,00.html

---

Quote:

---

blacksabbathrulz said:

Quote:

---

Alex123 said:
Bump for old times sake. Funnily enough an awful lot of the pre-war posts by neocons confidently stating that Iraq had WMD seem to be "gone missing" themselves..rather like the WMD...

We were all wrong, says ex-weapons inspector

Simon Jeffery and agencies
Thursday January 29, 2004

The former head of the US weapons inspection teams in Iraq has said "we were almost all wrong" in believing before the war that Saddam Hussein had chemical or biological arms.
David Kay, who last week resigned from the Iraq Survey Group, told a Senate hearing yesterday that failures had become too apparent in the US's intelligence-gathering capabilities.

"Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here," he said.

"I believe that the effort that has been directed to this point has been sufficiently intense that it is highly unlikely that there were large stockpiles of deployed militarised chemical and biological weapons there."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1134290,00.html

---

did you ever stop to consider the six months before the weapons inspectors went into iraq?? How do you know that he didnt move weapons into syria or elsewhere?

---

Quote:

---

blacksabbathrulz said:
And to save many of you the response of Bush would have invaded them anyway Im posting it now. But I don't buy it

---

Quote:

---

Alex123 said:
So you don't think there's a single person who worked on WMD in the last 10 years who would come forward and say "Hey guys, give me 50 million and I'll lead you to where we made the WMD".

Not very likely is it.

It's a lot more likely the neocons needed an excuse and thought WMD fitted the bill isn't it.

---

Quote:

---

luvdemshrooms said:
To your credit you have a handle on the difference of "proof" and "evidence".

Would that all did.

---

Hey thanks man.


Snobrdr311: So let me get this straight. Once Saddam realized that his country was going to be invaded for sure, he sent all of his weapons to another country.

His only means of defense. He got rid of them once he knew he was to be invaded.

Quote:

---

Snobrdr311 said:
Hey Learyfan, I like your quote, "think for yourself and question authority."  I agree with that.

---

Thanks. That's actually Timothy Leary's though.




www.spiritualscience.org/leary.gif">

Quote:

---

Alex123 said:
Well, as luvdemlies would say,  "You can't prove it won't"

---

Quote:

---

It wouldn't suprise me if we did have some flaws in intel, but I don't think so this time.. Saddam had WMD and shipped them to Syria, no doubt in my mind and a lot of others.

---

Quote:

---

If the intel was wrong then it was reported wrong to him, it's not his fault, his intensions are trying to protect the American people in a global war against terror.

---

Yes, Bush is indeed a moron that'll believe whatever he is told by "experts". Glad we agree