Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Did Saddam Have WMD?


DreamRebel

Recommended Posts

Ignorance is a great pillow for all of you to sleep on...

No one has claimed that Bush is correct. All we have claimed is that there is NO EVIDENCE to suggest that he has lied. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, we are, in this case, the defense... therefore we don't have to provide evidence. And no, this is not an "arguing out of ignorance" or "prove me wrong" tactic; we simply don't have to defend our beliefs against wild accusations that are backed up by only the most flimsy excuse for proof.

FluffyBunny, Stamford... people such are yourselves outrage people because of your beliefs... it's true. You have a right to believe whatever you want, and to voice that opinion... but the people you voice it to also have the right to get angry and criticize you for it. Most people that share the types of belief structures that you exhibit cling onto thier beliefs as fact... and do not find the need to support them with evidence, acknowledge evidence to the contrary, or give any benefit of reasonable doubt to thier opposition. You may be well spoken, and your cool is simple to maintain... you are the accuser. For those being accused, it is harder... as we are faced with ridiculous charges to our beliefs that are not supported by any factual evidence... only speculation.

Yes, both sides here are operating on speculation... as bathory stated. And that's the problem; those who accuse (FluffyBunny) should have more than speculation to go on when they confront thier opponent.

*BTW, I type quickly and don't proof read... this is an internet forum after all, and not a formal paper. Therefore, I do not worry about spelling and minor grammatical errors. Attacking me for those is pointless.*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 241
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Fluffybunny

    37

  • joc

    28

  • stillcrazy

    23

  • Stamford

    18

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

FluffyBunny... you haven't provided ANY evidence, so stop claiming that you have.

Did you even bother to read the information at the links that I posted? from your response I guess not. The links offer a great deal of information that do qualify as evidence in the assertion I make. If you don't like it, just move on then.

You are apparantly ; and that's why you've managed to bother so many people already.  Put a sock in it, would ya?

I am "to ill-equipped to recognize the difference between factual evidence and personal conviction"?

I know the definition of evidence and conviction. I can tell the difference. Thanks for checking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW; you've done a great job of twisting everything I've said.  Since I'm obviously dealing with someone of a lesser intelligence, I'll be careful to be more specific in the future.

Why do you want to attack my "lesser intelligence" rather than attack my argument?

Is the only response you can muster a personal attack on me?

I am responding to what you post with my own response, it generally works well and is entertaining and educational. If you don't like what I say, then reply in a constructive way, or forget about what I say and move on to the next thread, it doesn't really matter to me.

YOU DON'T HAVE AN ARGUMENT.

Others have made that quite clear, there is no reason for me to restate it.

I will though in as many words: FAULTY INTELLIGENCE IS NOT LYING.

Enough...

You do not have clarity of thought, I really do pity you.

Why should I reply in an "educational manner." As I have stated, others have already done so, and you have ignored them or responded with more irrational propaganda. If you do not WANT to learn; why should I TRY to educate you???

As far as intelligence, it's hard not to bring that into the fray. I deal with a very wide variety of people every day... and I cannot help noticing that, of those I speak to on a regular basis, those that share your views are the least intelligent of those that I communicate with. On the other hand, the most intelligent people that I correspond with on a daily basis tend to share most of my views... or at least my conclusions. Yes; this is faulty logic to most, but when you make the same observation over and over again, you begin to equate it with some degree of factuality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FluffyBunny... you haven't provided ANY evidence, so stop claiming that you have.

Did you even bother to read the information at the links that I posted? from your response I guess not. The links offer a great deal of information that do qualify as evidence in the assertion I make. If you don't like it, just move on then.

You are apparantly ; and that's why you've managed to bother so many people already.  Put a sock in it, would ya?

I am "to ill-equipped to recognize the difference between factual evidence and personal conviction"?

I know the definition of evidence and conviction. I can tell the difference. Thanks for checking.

I have read your links; they provided no useful information... more of what I would considered "brainwashing", "propoganda", and "mis-information."

You can tell me that you know the definition all you like, but I see evidence in the patterns of your logic that tells me otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I think I'll take your advice to ignore you from now on.

You are not worthy of my time, I would rather argue with someone that listens to reason and evaluates facts... rather than someone who is convicted in thier own beliefs to the point that they try to offer them up as evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a link to a website that covers the ideas of the Libertarian party. Link It is quite informative

If you need to supply a link in order to get your belief system across, perhaps it is because you aren't sure enough of what you believe to state it matter of factly.

BTW, I think I'll take your advice to ignore you from now on.

You are not worthy of my time, I would rather argue with someone that listens to reason and evaluates facts... rather than someone who is convicted in thier own beliefs to the point that they try to offer them up as evidence.

I predict closure soon............

................................of this thread that is!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok; this is it... my whole view on the subject... and then I will say no more.

Bush did not lie, he was provided with faulty information which was promised to be genuine by the intelligence community. He, of course, took it for granted... which may not have been the wisest course of action.

In Iraq, we obviously accomplished something of import by removing Saddam. Now, it is true that we have not yet accomplished out goal of finding weapons of mass destruction... but we have not yet completely failed. We have found trace evidence that suggests recent production of chemical and biological weapons.

Why go in the first place? Iraq provided us with evidence that some small portion of thier WMDs had been destroyed. Good for Iraq... but this is where the problem arises. If Iraq had been so willing to provide us with information of the destruction of some... why wouldn't they be some forth coming with evidence to prove the destruction of the rest! Saddam has proved in the past that he is devious, trickery is his home turf. So should we be surprised when Saddam begins playing a game with the international community? Of course not. Saddam's constantly changing attitude and reactions towards the destruction of his weapons and the inspectors there to garauntee it was subject to suspicion. So either, Saddam had weapons and was hiding them... or he was playing a gambit; a last ditch attempt to try and save his regime. Either way, he was conducting illegal activities and being decietful; lying to the world. That seems reason enough.

As far as Bush planning the extraction of Saddam before 9/11; this should come as no surprise. Saddam has been an enemy of the US for many years now, and a common topic of discussion within the White House administration has always been how to dispose or contain enemies of the state. So this shouldn't be surprising. At this point, it was all speculation (just as all these arguments are) and there is no reason to get riled up over it. Surely, it was part of the reason for going to war... but is deposing an evil dictator really such a bad reason for war in the first place?

*saxcatz has left the thread*

Edited by Aslan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, the most intelligent people that I correspond with on a daily basis tend to share most of my views... or at least my conclusions

*knows from past experience that saxcatz estimates 'intelligence' by the degree to which you disagree or agree with him tongue.gif*

Fluffy, I feel for you, I really do huh.gif From what I've been reading, you may be dealing with the single most hard headed and beligerant person on the face of the planet tongue.gif When a point of veiw, based upon the facts as you've seen them, is met with what is essentially a "you're stupid!" from the opposite side, there's no real point debating I'm afraid.

To your credit though, you've still been conducting yourself well, which is more than can be said for your opponent tongue.gif Which is still comendable under the circumstances. Unfortunately, you're dealing with the camp that's of the belief that anyone who doesn't share their belief is an idiot, and you'd probably best quit while the scoreboard still says you won thumbsup.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I predict closure soon............

................................of this thread that is!

Pleaaase for the love of God!!!!!!!

Anyway, After conducting my own reasearch on this I find that:

  • Fluffy's links are of the same calibur as those of sites that claim anything from Aliens running Phillip Morris to Proctor and Gamble being Satanists. Sorry but the accusers supply no back ups to their claims nor do they convince me to the least.
  • No matter what you say you have never answered the fact that Faulty Inllegence does not equal lying.
  • The only differences in liberal and Libertarin are minimal but damaging should one ever see election. (example legalisation of drugs and opening the US borders to everyone no questions asked....)
  • Some of my hobbies are based in more reality than the supposed WMD lies.

Remember this is just opinion I do not claim it as fact since I do not have any fanatical websites to back me up....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow , this is sad . It reminds me of kindergarten .

Im right !

No your not !

Yes I am !

Am not !

Am too !

Am not !

Am too !

Am not !

Am too !

Am not !

Am too !

Am not !

Am too !

Am not !

blink.giftongue.gifrolleyes.gif

As I said before , none of you are part of the Bush admin cabinet and none of you are part of Sadaams inner circle . So it all depends on if you buy what the government says or you dont . Based on personal experience with the government , it is probobly half true . But even then its just speculation based on The US history , It could be an enire flat out lie , it could be the full truth .

As for the people outside the US , I would like to know how you know more about our country then we do ? we are not living in the dark blindfolded by our government , I myself dont believe half the stuff they try to pin on us .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember this is just opinion I do not claim it as fact since I do not have any fanatical websites to back me up....

Anyway, After conducting my own reasearch on this I find that:

[*]Fluffy's links are of the same calibur as those of sites that claim anything from Aliens running Phillip Morris to  Proctor and Gamble being Satanists.

Lets see what my links consist of...The Washington Post, The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Colin Powells own quote, and David Corn; the editor of The Nation Magazine.

I am assuming that you didn't even bother to read the links I provided as none of the above have ever said anything of the "calibur" of Aliens or satanists. It is so interesting that you would say that though in a discussion where you are defending the president on whether he lied about WMD. Very Interesting and ironic.

Sorry but the accusers supply no back ups to their claims nor do they convince me to the least.

I bet nothing would, would it? It is your right.

[*]The only differences in liberal and Libertarin are minimal but damaging should one ever see election. (example legalisation of drugs and opening the US borders to everyone no questions asked....)

If you were to actually read what the differences are, you would find that Liberals and Libertarians are on two different ends of the spectrum. Both Liberals and Conservitives are on a seperate end of the political spectrum from Libertarians. www.lp.org can help you if you would like to know the difference.

I won't go into details as It isn't appropriate for this thread, but you are wrong as to the differences being minimal. Very wrong.

As for opening the borders, that is one factor I do not agree with. As for legalizing drugs, there are many arguments that support it, but again that is not appropriate here. If you want to discuss that, we can start another thread elsewhere.

What that has to do with Bush and WMD I don't know, other than another attempt to bash me for lack of your own valid argument...It seems to be a trend among you who are fanatical Bush supporters...

No matter what you say you have never answered the fact that Faulty Inllegence does not equal lying

I can see what you are saying here, I really can. I find it hard to believe that anyone who actually devoted the time to researching the information that Bush used to make his decisions can see that in no stretch of the imagination could it equal his quotes of Terrorist Links and the severity of the WMD issue. Not even Colin Powell agreed with him on the matter. The severe difference between the facts of the matter at hand, and presidents Bushes quotes add up to a lie.

Maybe by just browsing through the information that has been provided in the Carnegie report it doesn't add up to just that much to you. The fact that both England and the US are putting together panels to research the very same issue seems to tell me that I am not alone in my opinion.

If you need to supply a link in order to get your belief system across, perhaps it is because you aren't sure enough of what you believe to state it matter of factly.

The above quote from joc is great. I have stated no less than ten times that Bush lied about the terrorist links and the Iraq WMD. I think I was pretty clear. I think that maybe if I were to start quoting bumper stickers that support my opinion it might influence joc to pay attention to the argument at hand. Let me see what I can come up with that fits on a bumper sticker. I will have to get back to you on that one. Like Abraham Lincoln said "If I had more time. I would have written you a shorter letter" I will try to boil things down a bit so as to not lose anyone in the long posts.

and I cannot help noticing that, of those I speak to on a regular basis, those that share your views are the least intelligent of those that I communicate with. On the other hand, the most intelligent people that I correspond with on a daily basis tend to share most of my views

Oh Saxcatz...I love your wonderful attempts at personal attacks. The humor value is just right off the charts. I was kind of hoping for some kind of constructive debate, with you being as smart as you claim to be.

Somehow you seem to prefer to take the low road and try to slam me personally. It doesn't bother me, I just wished that you realized how bad it made you look.

If you look back over your posts here and on other threads you really are missing the mark in sharing your wonderful wit and wisdom with us here at the forums.

It just isn't fair to the rest of us that come here to learn and experience others points of view. Please saxcatz, feel free to let fly with a smidge more of your intellect in your arguments, I think I can keep up. If I can't I will ask questions if that is OK with you.

Again, when you attack me personally I am going to say something back.

Otter:

Once again, I am going to reply to your posts when you post them. I see that you are frustrated with this thread, but if you come here to make claims about my links, or my own political beliefs, I am going to answer them to the best of my ability.

Earlier you mentioned something about people leaving over this debate. I have no idea who or what you are talking about, but this is a discussion forum. I come here to discuss. If something I say so offends you or your beliefs, either reply in a constructive manner or try another thread that doesn't bother you so much. There are several here that I steer clear from for that reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both Liberals and Conservitives are on a seperate end of the political spectrum from Libertarians.

Finally a quote we can agree on! thumbsup.gif While both Liberals and Conservatives

reside on the majority end of the political spectrum, the Libertarians

and Independents can be found way back on the other end....

....the minority end. cool.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did President Bush lie.... probably, he is after all a politician I do find it strange that people can find an argument in that, perhaps American political figures are generally of a higher calibre than those in the U.K. (I would not find this surprising). Everyone is entitled to an opinion and voicing those opinions is a right granted in democracies, if people simply followed their leaders without question then we may as well forget about elections, as I find this to be another form of voicing an opinion. Open debate is one of the most important parts of living in a democracy it is unfortunate when these debates turns into i'm right your wrong, but this is to be expected if people are so hardened to their own opinion. This debate will continue along the same lines until a mod locks this thread or you simply agree to disagree, I think the later would be more constructive.

Well that's what I think! grin2.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....the minority end. cool.gif

Right joc, I forgot it is more important to pick a winner in each election...My mistake. For some reason I thought that it might be important to vote for what you believe in...How wacky of me.... rolleyes.gif

How sad...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right joc, I forgot it is more important to pick a winner in each election...My mistake. For some reason I thought that it might be important to vote for what you believe in...How wacky of me....  rolleyes.gif 

I'm sorry Fluffy, Rush didn't tell me who the Libertarian candidate for

President in 2004 was going to be. Please enlighten me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry Fluffy, Rush didn't tell me who the Libertarian candidate for

President in 2004 was going to be. Please enlighten me.

I doubt Rush knows. Or cares. His knowledge of politics is a bit slanted. I would imagine however that he might enjoy the Libertarians stance on drugs. It would keep him out of jail...It might be in his best interest to do some research.

Why do you want to know? What is your interest?

If you are interested here are a few facts from the website:

The Libertarian Party ran more than 1430 candidates in the 2000 elections, more than twice as many as all other third parties combined. We fielded candidates for 255 of the 435 seats in the U.S House as well as 25 of the 33 Senate seats up for election -- the first time in eighty years that any third party has contested a majority of the seats in Congress. Our slate of U.S. House candidates received 1.7 million votes, the first time any third party has received over a million votes for U.S. House.

We are building a new political party from the grassroots up, and the vast majority of our candidates are running for local office. Currently, over 300 Libertarians hold elective office, more than twice as many as all other third parties combined.

There won't be a libertarian president for some time, but there are libertarians in local positions throughout the country. If you would like to know who is in your area visit www.lp.org
Link to comment
Share on other sites

POST ALL THE LINKS YOU WANT, IT STILL AMOUNTS TO SPECULATION.

There are three obvious reasons that could result in bush being wrong, he lied, he was lied to, the intelligence was incorrect. Noone here has proof which shows which of the 3 is the actual reason so please stop pretending you know. This goes for both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you want to know? What is your interest?

Just curious who you would be voting your beliefs on in November.

I would imagine however that he might enjoy the Libertarians stance on drugs. It would keep him out of jail...It might be in his best interest to do some research.

Would this be the Libertarian stance that you hold?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

POST ALL THE LINKS YOU WANT, IT STILL AMOUNTS TO SPECULATION.

OK.. YOUR MESSAGE HAS BEEN HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR. THANK YOU FOR YOUR POST.

You have your opinion and you are welcome to it Bathory. Type with all the caps you want, it doesn't change the evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would this be the Libertarian stance that you hold?

I don't use drugs, or believe in drug use(Outside of prescriptions of course). I have never used illegal drugs. I would not want anyone I know to use illegal drugs. With me that includes alcohol, but that is just my personal opinion.

There are several arguments for the legalization of drugs in the US, as the "drug war" has failed miserably. None of those reasons would be appropriate here though as they don't really have anything to do with Saddam or WMD

If you are really interested in finding out my opinion and not just fishing for argumental fodder, start a threat in an appropriate group, and I will be more than willing to discuss it with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking about it wasnt the point of this thread to find out whether or not Saddam had WMD, and not who said what where why when and how ???? huh.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*sighs*

the evidence is speculation ...

You sigh alot xeno...asthma? you might want to have someone look at that...it sounds like it might be a problem.

There seem to be so many fragile people here...people are leaving the thread in a huff...people are name calling...personal attacks...

If it makes you warm and fuzzy to call it speculative, fine...go ahead, knock yourself out. I don't care what you consider it. I don't care IF you consider it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seem to be so many fragile people here...people are leaving the thread in a huff...people are name calling...personal attacks...

and there are people so convinced that they are right even when the evidence they are presenting proves nothing. You remind me of Nxt2hvn, so convinced that you are right, even when the evidence you cite is nothing but mere speculation, the evidence you claim ends up being this "Bush was wrong, he must've lied, omg I speak the fact!", 100% speculation, 0% fact. Its quite simple, yet you fail to see this.

If it makes you warm and fuzzy to call it speculative, fine...go ahead, knock yourself out. I don't care what you consider it. I don't care IF you consider it.

you don't care for counter arguements because in your mind you are right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.