Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Saddam Hussein had WMD, and in 1988 he used them on the Kurds. That is fact. To say that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD is a lie.Were you even alive in 1988?
This isn't about 1988 though, this is about the WMDs Saddam allegedly had in 2003, which was the basis for the 2003 invasion. Those alleged WMDs were never found.
Yes. Were you awake from 2003 to 2011?
Originally posted by Robtard
This isn't about 1988 though, this is about the WMDs Saddam allegedly had in 2003, which was the basis for the 2003 invasion. Those alleged WMDs were never found.Yes. Were you awake from 2003 to 2011?
We did find WMD. Let me quote you. "And the US did find bunkers full of cerin (sp?) gas," Sarin gas is a WMD. So, Saddam Hussein had WMD and the US found them. You can say we did not find nukes, but you cannot say we did not find WMD.
Maybe the truth isn't important to you.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We did find WMD. Let me quote you. "And the US did find bunkers full of cerin (sp?) gas," Sarin gas is a WMD. So, Saddam Hussein had WMD and the US found them. You can say we did not find nukes, but you cannot say we did not find WMD.Maybe the truth isn't important to you.
Yes, and it was stated that those were not the WMDs that the US went to war over. They were left over from the Iran-Iraq war that ended in 1988, long forgotten and not in usable condition.
Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, and it was stated that those were not the WMDs that the US went to war over. They were left over from the Iran-Iraq war that ended in 1988, long forgotten and in in not usable condition.
I don't care what the US went to war over. I am talking about what YOU said. It was wrong, and I corrected you.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't care what the US went to war over.I am talking about what YOU said. It was wrong, and I corrected you.
A very odd statement.
Actually it is correct, the WMDs in question that the US went to war over were never found. This was never about "did Saddam ever have WMDs during his reign"; the conversation has been specifically about the GW Iraq war from the start and you know that.
Originally posted by Robtard
A very odd statement.Actually it is correct, the WMDs in question that the US went to war over were never found. This was never about "did Saddam ever have WMDs during his reign"; the conversation has been specifically about the GW Iraq war from the start and you know that.
😂 You just rationalize all over the place. Technically, Saddam Hussein had WMDs and we found them. 🤣 😆 😆
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't care what the US went to war over. I am talking about what YOU said. It was wrong, and I corrected you.
That so?
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?
Here we see Robtard's original post. Which is about what the US went to war over.
If you don't care, then what are you arguing? Do you even know?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
😂 You just rationalize all over the place.Technically, Saddam Hussein had WMDs and we found them. 🤣 😆 😆
My point has always been about the WMDs the war was sold on (not Saddam in the 80's). So I've been in the same place.
History disagrees, much to George W. Bush's dismay.
Originally posted by Robtard
My point has always been about the WMDs the war was sold on (not Saddam in the 80's). So I've been in the same place.History disagrees, much to George W. Bush's dismay.
But the way you say it is wrong, it leads to a lie.
As far as Bush, I don't want to talk about Bush to Bush haters.
The fact is that Saddam had WMD when we entered Baghdad. If you want to talk about Nukes, then say "Nukes". But that's not what you do. Why? Why do you insist on saying WMD when you mean Nukes? You are distorting the facts, and I think you are doing for ideological reasons. What do you have to gain by distorting the truth?
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonIt was incredibly obvious when he said "the WMDs that the Bush cabinet sold the war on" that he was referring to nuclear weapons though.
The fact is that Saddam had WMD when we entered Baghdad. If you want to talk about Nukes, then say "Nukes". But that's not what you do. Why? Why do you insist on saying WMD when you mean Nukes? You are distorting the facts, and I think you are doing for ideological reasons. What do you have to gain by distorting the truth?
Why do you need obvious meanings explicitly spelled out for you to understand them? You're either arguing for the sake of arguing, or your reading comprehension is poor enough that one would question if you're old enough to actually be on this site. It's a 13+ site, Shakya. Alpha Centauri's gonna get ya, Shakya.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But the way you say it is wrong, it leads to a lie.As far as Bush, I don't want to talk about Bush to Bush haters.
The fact is that Saddam had WMD when we entered Baghdad. If you want to talk about Nukes, then say "Nukes". But that's not what you do. Why? Why do you insist on saying WMD when you mean Nukes? You are distorting the facts, and I think you are doing for ideological reasons. What do you have to gain by distorting the truth?
Except it's not.
OK, neither do I. But the fact remains that if the WMDs that Bush sold the war on had been found, Bush would have been the first to point it out, since it would have proven his claims correct.
Nukes, biological or chemical WMDs, doesn't really matter in the end; the fact remains that the WMDs that Bush sold the war on were never found.
"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he [Saddam] can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." - C. Rice 2003
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I thought they identified him.
It's meant to be this guy named L Jinny (rap name)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cT1YDIV4lGE
Real name Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
So, the British journalist David Haines has been beheaded.They showed another Brit next in line to be executed at the end of the video.
Apparently, they're trying to dissuade the UK to form a coalition with the US.
Do they have a stockpile of Westerners they can keep threatening to decapitating as a deterrent?