Originally posted by Robtard
Iraq wasn't involved in the 9/11 attacks.
America went into Iraqi because Saddam had WMDs; turned out he didn't. Don't you recall when I broke it down in your beheading thread not long ago?
Originally posted by Robtard
Pretty sure that if the WMDs that the Bush cabinet sold the war on had been found, Bush would have been doing back-flips while giving the middle finger and saying "told ya so!". There are multiple ways to kill people without using WMDs.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sure he did, and we knew he did, because we gave them to him. Do I have to post the picture of the dead peoples?
Here's the thing about chemical weapons that makes them so dangerous and that might make the recent UN-sponsored effort to remove them from Syria ultimately pointless despite its success: chemical weapons are super easy to manufacture. The same factories that produce castor oil can produce ricin, while it doesn't take much modifications for a chlorine factory to produce chlorine gas. The only marginally difficult part is fashioning a delivery mechanism, of which Saddam had in abundance with his cheap scuds. Scuds were in many ways the ideal carrier for chemical weapons warheads because they're cheap but notoriously inaccurate, which isn't a problem if your payload can kill by area of effect.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
For sure you said WMD’s then you switched it to nukes. We did give him WMD's.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You didn't say nukes. You said WMDs.
The "WMD's" the Bush cabinet sold the war on were nuclear based weapons, hence the whole "yellow cake uranium" deal Powell did and the "not have a mushroom cloud in Manhattan be the smoking gun" Rice blabbed about. So "WMD" and "nukes" is exchangeable in this specific setting.
No nukes were found. No WMDs were found. Which ever way you put it, the Bush cabinet sold the war to us on a lie.
Originally posted by Robtard
The "WMD's" the Bush cabinet sold the war on were nuclear based weapons, hence the whole "yellow cake uranium" deal Powell did and the "not have a mushroom cloud in Manhattan be the smoking gun" Rice blabbed about. So "WMD" and "nukes" is exchangeable in this specific setting.No nukes were found. No WMDs were found. Which ever way you put it, the Bush cabinet sold the war to us on a lie.
😂 And you believed that crap?
Just admit that Saddam Hussein had WMD because we gave them to him. That is why we knew he had them. Me and you are not talking about nukes. We are talking about all or any WMD.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
😂 And you believed that crap?Just admit that Saddam Hussein had WMD because we gave them to him. That is why we knew he had them. Me and you are not talking about nukes. We are talking about all or any WMD.
It's not a matter of belief or not, it's a fact that the WMDs the Bush cabinet sold the war on were nuclear in nature. ie the "yellow cake" sell.
And the US did find bunkers full of cerin (sp?) gas, which is a form of WMD, but again it was stated "these are not the WMDs we thought Saddam had; went to war over". You should probably do some research.
Originally posted by Robtard
It's not a matter of belief or not, it's a fact that the WMDs the Bush cabinet sold the war on were nuclear in nature. ie the "yellow cake" sell.And the US did find bunkers full of cerin (sp?) gas, which is a form of WMD, but again it was stated "these are not the WMDs we thought Saddam had; went to war over". You should probably do some research.
Irrelevant. I was correcting you when you said that Saddam had no WMD. He did! I didn't say anything about Nukes! You kept trying to change the subject.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Irrelevant. I was correcting you when you said that Saddam had no WMD. He did! I didn't say anything about Nukes! You kept trying to change the subject.
Are you being obtuse on purpose? My stance was clear that the WMDs were the ones the war was sold on (nukes).
See:
Originally posted by Robtard
Pretty sure that if the WMDs that the Bush cabinet sold the war on had been found, Bush would have been doing back-flips while giving the middle finger and saying "told ya so!".
You keep bringing up that "WMDs were found and hidden", without substantiating it once.
Originally posted by Robtard
Are you being obtuse on purpose? My stance was clear that the WMDs were the ones the war was sold on (nukes).See:
You keep bringing up that "WMDs were found and hidden", without substantiating it once.
Dude, you were wrong. Just admit it. If you mean nukes, say nukes.
"A weapon of mass destruction (WMD or WoMD) is a nuclear, radiological, biological, chemical or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere."
https://www.google.com/#q=WMD+definition
Remember in 1988? The Kurds?
The world is better off without Saddam Hussein!
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Dude, you were wrong. Just admit it. If you mean nukes, say nukes."A weapon of mass destruction (WMD or WoMD) is a nuclear, radiological, biological, chemical or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere."
https://www.google.com/#q=WMD+definition
Remember in 1988? The Kurds?
The world is better off without Saddam Hussein!
History tells us that the WMDs the Bush cabinet went to war over were not found. So no, I was not wrong when repeating history.
What are your thoughts on the 200,000+ Iraqi civilians that were killed because of the second Iraq/Bush war?
Some would argue that Iraq being a lawless terrorist breeding ground might be worse.