|
Bush a moron or not? (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
I dont get it... he proclaims there is "undeniable proof" that WMD exist and he will show the world this.. yet not ONE weapon was found except an expired tank of Sarin gas.
If i went into a bank and told the tellers that someone was going to rob the bank and I had "undeniable proof" that it was going to happen.. yet the robbers didnt show up and i didnt have proof of any of this happening.. i dont think the authorities would be too happy.And this is just a bank... Bush INVADED a country based on lies.
He is either mentally retarded / schizophrenic for making such a HUGE claim... or he lied to the world becuase he was in a position of power after 9/11 |
Or, here's another option:
1. He was making the exact same claim that several Democrats made, without variation.
2. Bush never used words such as "imminent threat", or many other such phrases that are attributed to him but were actually simply made up by his partisan opponents. However, many other political figures made these claims.
3. Iraq in 1998 was known to have a ton of illegal weapons and yet we have no proof other than Saddam's "word" that they were destroyed. Further to that he prevented U.N. inspectors from doing their job and acted in a manner which very much suggested he was lying.
4. Putting aside the fact that many more suspect items have been found than an "expired tank of Sarin gas" (which was still deemed still capable of killing several people, along with another tank of mustard gas), including the enriched Uranium, there are many working theories on where some of the other ones went, for example that they were smuggled to Syria. I'm also pretty sure that Rumsfeld claimed there were something like 16 or 17 shells, not 1.
5. There's an entire ing country to look through! How quickly do you expect them to work!? It's like looking for a contact lens on a football field, and I'm very surprised they've found ANYTHING up to this point! What were you expecting, a 50-foot-high flashing neon sign that says "THIS WAY TO WMDs" pointing to a huge warehouse full of nuclear warheads?
Maybe you'd like to take Saddam up on his word that he instantly disarmed himself and his country while no one (including the U.N.) was looking, but frankly I'm glad that there are some people who would rather not take that risk. Answer the question, Cyrus: if Iraq doesn't have the weapons, WHERE ARE THEY? |
|
|
| maxtuh |
| quote: | Originally posted by dEsidEL
O.J. is innocent
|
No i say MJ is:D |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
| quote: | Originally posted by maxtuh
No i say MJ is:D |
yeah? so is KOBE
|
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
if Iraq doesn't have the weapons, [B]WHERE ARE THEY? |
ISREAL,and there are plenty of them there.Why cant the US invade them and bomb them for WMD? I dont think anyone will ever stop them just bcause it is Isreal :rolleyes: |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
ISREAL,and there are plenty of them there.Why cant the US invade them and bomb them for WMD? I dont think anyone will ever stop them just bcause it is Isreal :rolleyes: |
You're seriously trying to say that the same weapons which were known to be in Iraq when U.N. inspectors left in 1998 are now in Israel?
We're all aware that Israel has weapons but you can't possibly believe that they are the same weapons which the U.N. inspectors originally found in Iraq. Nobody is going to believe that unless you provide proof.
I'm still waiting for a legitimate answer: where are the WMDs that Iraq was known to have in 1998? |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
Bush INVADED a country based on lies.
|
He did????
Then I guess they beat Canada to being the next state... :haha:
I never understood the term, "invade" people throw around, it insinuates an empire or kingdom.
Someone please name me the last country the United States 'took over' as part of their 'empire'? :rolleyes:
Nazi Germany was an empire and any correlation between that and U.S. used by people need to get their heads checked...(but then I guess they wouldn't be ubercool if they didn't these days...) |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
[FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=#99CCEE]You're seriously trying to say that the same weapons which were known to be in Iraq when U.N. inspectors left in 1998 are now in Israel?
We're all aware that Israel has weapons but you can't possibly believe that they are the same weapons which the U.N. inspectors originally found in Iraq. Nobody is going to believe that unless you provide proof. |
All Iam saying is the if the US cares so much about WMD they can go after Isreal,they have plenty of them and not scared to use them,and Isreal is a threat to the region.Now they are going after Iran ffs:o
Why cant anyone stop them? :conf: |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
All Iam saying is the if the US cares so much about WMD they can go after Isreal,they have plenty of them and not scared to use them,and Isreal is a threat to the region.Now they are going after Iran ffs:o
Why cant anyone stop them? :conf: |
How is Israel considered a threat to the USA simply because they have weapons? What about Russia and half of Asia? Why single out Israel? They certainly aren't the only country with weapons.
I think there's a little more to why the USA made a preemptive strike on Iraq than the simple fact that they were thought to have WMDs. It was that, coupled with the fact that Saddam was an extremist dictator with no respect for human life who was KNOWN to be using those weapons for personal gain by virtue of the fact that he used them on his own people. Many countries have weapons, but they're there primarily as an "in case", as a self-defense mechanism. When was the last time Israel or Russia actually lobbed a warhead at a neighbouring country?
Now North Korea, that's another story - wouldn't mind seeing them be next in line to Iraq. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
He did????
Then I guess they beat Canada to being the next state... :haha:
I never understood the term, "invade" people throw around, it insinuates an empire or kingdom.
Someone please name me the last country the United States 'took over' as part of their 'empire'? :rolleyes:
Nazi Germany was an empire and any correlation between that and U.S. used by people need to get their heads checked...(but then I guess they wouldn't be ubercool if they didn't these days...) |
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictiona...onary&va=invade
Main Entry: in·vade
Pronunciation: in-'vAd
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): in·vad·ed; in·vad·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin invadere, from in- + vadere to go -- more at WADE
1 : to enter for conquest or plunder
2 : to encroach upon : INFRINGE
3 a : to spread over or into as if invading : PERMEATE b : to affect injuriously and progressively
synonym see TRESPASS
- in·vad·er noun
...seems to be an appropriate choice of words to me ;) |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
How is Israel considered a threat to the USA simply because they have weapons? What about Russia and half of Asia? Why single out Israel? They certainly aren't the only country with weapons. |
Is is always about what the Us thinks and what the US wants??Isreal is the threat to the region,and if US cares about security in that region they should perhaps do something about it,or mayve cut their fundings to Isreal.
| quote: | | coupled with the fact that Saddam was an extremist dictator with no respect for human life |
and Bush isnt all the above ( - the dictator part)?? :rolleyes:
| quote: | | who was KNOWN to be using those weapons for personal gain by virtue of the fact that he used them on his own people. |
you forgot to mention the FACT that all those weapons were given to them by the US government and other european countries.You forgot to mention that US could've stoped the gasing but they didnt.
| quote: | | Many countries have weapons, but they're there primarily as an "in case", as a self-defense mechanism. |
If thats the case then why lets say Iran cant have such weapons?are they not allow to protect themselves? it seems like only the countries that have close ties with the Americans can have those weapons.
| quote: | | Now North Korea, that's another story - wouldn't mind seeing them be next in line to Iraq. |
I guess NK isnt that important not as much as Iraq was anyways,even tho NK kept saying that they will use their weapons,and they dont care about the UN or what anyone tells them,but stillBush decided to bomb Iraq regardless of all those direct threats from NK:o |
|
|
| Your Mother |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
How is Israel considered a threat to the USA simply because they have weapons? What about Russia and half of Asia? Why single out Israel? They certainly aren't the only country with weapons.
I think there's a little more to why the USA made a preemptive strike on Iraq than the simple fact that they were thought to have WMDs. It was that, coupled with the fact that Saddam was an extremist dictator with no respect for human life who was KNOWN to be using those weapons for personal gain by virtue of the fact that he used them on his own people. Many countries have weapons, but they're there primarily as an "in case", as a self-defense mechanism. When was the last time Israel or Russia actually lobbed a warhead at a neighbouring country?
Now North Korea, that's another story - wouldn't mind seeing them be next in line to Iraq. |
Do you believe all this that you spew? Or do I have to make you look like an idiot?
-Your Mother |
|
|
|
|
