Staredit Network

Why do people keep claiming the war was for oil? That doesn't even make sense, especially now.

STARS, face it: there are no WMDs, and by the way, Dirty Bomb are immensely ineffective. Weapons of mass destructions should never include chemical weapons or bio weapons, because the most any of those has ever killed might be, what, a couple hundred? They're often just dispersed by the wind, they're only effective in small, closed places, like subways, and even in the subway attacks in Tokyo, only what, twenty people died. Twenty deaths isn't a "weapon of mass destruction". They gave up because there just weren't any to begin with. An STARS, he meant that they have to build them somewhere, and they haven't found any plants, either.

mmmm we do have sitalite photos of suspicous places/trucks/containers, but of course we didn't want to strike them becuase if we were wrong it would kill my civilians and then you guys would flame the President even more


Also here is a fact: There is no concrete evidence that there are WMDs.

Heres another fact: There is no concrete evidence that there are NO WMDs in Iraq.

Last fact: No one knows for sure, its just what you beleive....

And how much propaganda has been shoved down your brain.

Ever heard of burden of proof?

Dirty bombs are mosr disruptive than dangerous, the rad in an average dirty bomb is near harmless, but the mass hysteria clogs hospitals, creates anarchy, etc.

Hey, even if there are only a few small barrels, thats harmless, what we're afraid of is large-scale production, not jsut some tray barrels of tear gas.

STARS, it is scientifically impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. For it to be scientifically excepted as existing, it must be proved that it DOES exist. So many people make this mistake. Abraham Lincoln was not a popular president at his day.

Where? *turns around and looks* Anything aposing your views is propaganda to you...... thats really sad....



You seem like an expert in the field of WMDs

Although very old, still very plausible under my eyes (n' it was solely fetched from an ol' post of mine here).

Think about it: US companies won't be in control of the oil fields, and greater world supply means lower prices.

What's sad is some people are protesting now because "Bush lied to them". Well it was insanely obvious that there were no "weapons of mass destruction" even before the U.S. invaded Iraq.


That's why the declaration of war was completely bullblam. Your government stated that there WERE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq with almost 200% certainty, stated that there were, and it was a fact. No hesitation whatsoever, no evidence whatsoever. Is that not suspicious?

I'm pretty sure that oil wasn't the problem. Saddam Hussein, however...

Bush Jr. just couldn't stand the fact that even after Bush Sr. fought this big war back in the early 90s, kicked some Middle Eastern ass, and came back home, this dictator was back in office.

That's my opinion, at least.

Britian's M-I 6 told us that there were WMDs, Russian intelligence told us there were WMDs, our own intelligence said there were WMDs, and as a President your suppose to ignore that? Lets face it, we messed up big time....

No heistation??? We gave/told saddam for MONTHS, almost a year what we were going to do and geuse what he did? With out saying this specifically is pretty much what he said "Bite me" He honestly thought we weren't going to attack him..

Evidence? No war is started over no evidence, there must have been convincing evidence for our president, but not none what so ever...

Whats suspicious is my internet has slowed down from this morning making me think I may have some adware on my computer now.....

Wow, they admited it in 3 years? I was expecting the ignorant retards would have never admited it.

For me Shapechanger, you have just become a *Terrorist*. I honestly don't know what makes you any different than the *Supposed* terrorists if this is your mentality.

ADDITION:


Heres another fact: There is concrete evidence that there are WMDs in the United States.

Not hovering back with this crap again (in there at post 30# and downwards) are ya? Already have replied to this looong time ago, but if you really wanna drag it back be my guest... just please get more facts/evidences and not innuendos solely.

If we listended to you, I don't think any presidents would have served even a single full term.

edit: double post because the forums are freaking out

How about this, you get me evidence to prove ME wrong, becuase debates with people like you are always one sided, us having to prove something to you and we are almost right every time, why don't you prove me wrong?


Rivalry and me always have to show evidence, you show evidence this time...

Burden of proof, baby... mere and simple.
(Why do I even bother to show what am aimimg at?) Because ppl like me like to see what evidences suppport, which claims were stated and not solely the "I've said it then it's undoubtly a truth" routine.

And if you actually have read what I linked above you should've seen that have already presented some of my points and some sources...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/europe/july...gence_7-14.html

Shows how British intelligence failed along with America in their intelligence and that their intel on the WMDs had flaws, with America and Britian being allies they passed information to each other.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10111

Shows Russia knew about WMDs pre-Iraq war. Thanks for the help....

This is where y'all blame Bush. *chuckle*

Basan, your 'burden of proof' link owned you.

It shows their knowledge, but no where in there does it say he actually has them.

So how did this help your argument?

For one, your source seems highly biased, STARS. Secondly, it only theorizes that Saddam hid the WMDs, it never actually reports conclusive proof.

well if you had WMDs and knew you weren't suppose to have them, and you knew in 3-6 months America was going to invade you, what are you going to do? Keep them? HELLZ NO!!!!! I would send them away, straight away. Last thing I would want to do is get caught with them....

and you are all missing the frickin point, all these intelligence agencies thought he had WMDs.......none of them had solid proof, and thats their fault cause they suck, but as a President if all these agencies say Iraq has got WMDs, do you just ignore that???

It innuendo leading and I'll leave it at that. The rest of that article dwelves in similar footsteps, so I don't consider it a (very) reliable source.
Also it shows that you haven't payed much attention to what I've stated in the other thread, but (hopefully) I'l elaborate further on it below.



Another thing though, why present similar things that I've countered (and even presented some) in the past but lets go back through that road again...

A UN resolution (namely 1441) was presented by the U.S. themselves with the aim to restore and enforce WMD inspections in Iraq, since they're were cutted off. Care to explain me why you've (read, U.S. admin) undermined their own former attempt? Lack of patience? Other hidden agenda? All of the refered before?
Why the hell do I need later proof that accurate intel wasn't possessed at the time, either than to mock/show the ridicule it got (and to hopeffuly hint for someone else not to repeat similar mistakes in the near future)?

That just not to mention that U.S. intelligence service tried to feed missleading intel to UN personel (linkage over the other thread at post #38).

For sums (and as it usually gets done), when you don't possess the full extent of facts, wait for the results to be shown or get'em more accurately (through diplomacy, not the 'World Schock Trooper' way). And we know how they didn't showed up, right?
(Links for this in the other older thread, provided in posts before at this thread.)



*Sighs* This was one of the reasons why I didn't bother to come back as often I did in the past. No one, or almost no one, really reads what's shown and is open minded enough (to let go of the bias).
Did you by any slim chance read what have provided before that? It awfuly seems a... *Cringes* hell no, to not say anything else than that.



The "if's" field isn't supposed to be that used in the SD area... but those are solely my standards (of debating with accuracy).

Plus, the Azores summit (another link fetched from another post of mine around somewhere) wasn't that far behind to allow Saddam an enough widened time response (to hid WMD's, even if he had'em). Compare the dates, since the war began in last March '03. Again, he should've waited for the UN resolution's results to come by (further links at other thread).
Patience and pondering doesn't seem to be one of G.Bush's strongest assets, does it? Swiftness and diplomacy don't exactly run hand in hand with each other.