Out of curiousity...

[LWW 10+ year member]

Yes, the al Samoud is a banned missle.. SO???? SHOW he used one, then I'll agree that he didn't get them all destroyed (not sure if he claimed to have either)

How about now? Actually he didn't claim to have destroyed them all. He claimed to not have them.

PEACE

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

You said 'he used chem weapons'.. I said, where's the article..

OOOPS! Another lie. I said chemical weapons sensors going of.

PEACE

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

SHOW ME A LINK so I can concede the point and agree with you

How about now.

PEACE

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

http://fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/facility/

How about this one. 48 sites identified by the UN 6 years after the cease fire. We are asked to believe that all 48 were destroyed along with the weapons yet their is NO evidence except Saddam said so.

Savant let me ask you this...why is it that you want PROOF to infinity of anything against Saddam but you never expect him to come up with any proof that he has lived up to his obligations?

Do you have any link supporting the fact that Saddam has destroyed these facilities and weapons?

If so please post them. If not please explain if you are a fool or a shill?

PEACE

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

Originally posted by LWW http://fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/facility/

 

How about this one. 48 sites identified by the UN 6 years after the cease fire. We are asked to believe that all 48 were destroyed along with the weapons yet their is NO evidence except Saddam said so.

 

Savant let me ask you this...why is it that you want PROOF to infinity of anything against Saddam but you never expect him to come up with any proof that he has lived up to his obligations?

 

Do you have any link supporting the fact that Saddam has destroyed these facilities and weapons?

 

If so please post them. If not please explain if you are a fool or a shill?

 

PEACE

Tell ya what, this is the last time I respond to 'any' post you make attacking me. As with the 'war time' thread and your addolescent correlations with the entire anal *** point (you cry if someone illudes to you being ********** yet your first insticnt was to imply I was gay because I mentioned anal ***? You never stuck it in a woman's ***? Don't know any men who have? doesn't supprise me, you are pretty uptight.. maybe a dick up your *** would loosen you up a bit) then try to imply I'm defending Saddam, yet AGAIN, showing your ignorance and being able to accept that criticizing Bush is NOT the same as supporting Saddam.. but, as has been pointed out hundreds, perhpas near thousands of times, you can't stand on your own merrits so you use gradeshcool tactics.. but, whatever..

To this post (and the few before this where you took things out of time and context to play your little games)..

I never said there shouldn't be 'proof' that these things are gone. If the US KNOWS/KNEW these places existed and where they were, A) why aren't we bombing them now (if we aren't that is), B) and more importantly, wouldn't it have made sense to send inspectors to those locations and verified they were destroyed ? if Saddam said they were gone and they weren't, then we get to blow them up.. if they are missing, that would be the 'proof' you want.. The point is, we don't know if they are still there now or not (we, the public).. And, your report shows them from 7 years ago.. no idea what the state of them is now..

The point of the instpections was/is to find this stuff and destroy it.. Was Saddam 'willlingly' doing this stuff? no.. was he at least starting to comply when US troops were at his borders? YES.. should we have pushed the issue and expanded the inspections and disarming/destroying bad stuff BEFORE going to war? I think so.. we didn't try.. Now we aren't sure what he has and what he was truthful about in his documents.. Would the inspection/resolution thing have worked? no gaurentee, but since we didn't even bother trying, we won't even know if it might have worked..

Anyway, like I said... I'm done responding to you. You don't have any interest at all in proving your point or helping with your info. You seem to have this need to have everyone like you despite your lack of anything of substance to contribute. You post count is up to near 200, yet over 2/3 of those are short posts with ignorant crap like "is it time yet?" then a few posts later "how about now".. 6 posts, 2 that weren't totally useless, one that offered anything even close to useful.. and you could have joined both 'non trival' posts into one.. Just another perfect example of how I might as well stop wasting my time with you. You don't know how to debate and don't care to, you only care to play your little schoolyard games, which is your perogative.. have at it, I'll not play anymore..

 

[CarAudioAddict 10+ year member]

I honestly don't think that Savant believes Saddam.

All he wants is proof of what you say. You say Saddam HAS WOMD, prove it. You say this war is about liberation, but that can't be.

The Truth is, We DON"T know if Saddam has these weapons or not.

How about this. The cops come into your house and arrest you because you are a SUSPECT in a crime. You are then taken DIRECTLY to jail, no trial, no evidence just arrested and end of story. Is that just?

If you say no, then how can you support a war that the reason behind it has NO proof.

What Savant, myself, and millions of other people (more than 1/2 of the US) are saying is:

THERE IS NO PROOF TO SUPPORT THE REASON THIS WAR WAS STARTED, SO HOW IS IT JUST?

Answer that question, without restating proven wrong statements, without your stupid "reality" statement, without name calling, and without any other form of misdirection, just a straight forward, clear answer.

Also what I find appalling is that you will believe Bush at his word. He is a politician, he lied to get into office, and he will lie to stay in office.

Remember the meaning of politics

poly - Many

tics - blood ******* creatures

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

The Truth is, We DON"T know if Saddam has these weapons or not.

This is the big lie. Here is what we have:

1-Saddam admits that he had them as recently as 1991.

2-UNMOVIC confirms Saddam has them as recently as 1997.

3-The 2nd round of inspectors concurs that Iraq was not cooperating, was not truthful, and had no credibility.

4-The UN as of resolution 1441 deemed that Iraq was in total violation of the 1991 ceasefire and every prior resolution (16 I think).

5-UNSCOM confirms that Saddam possessed illegally, mfgd illegally, and hid illegally Al Samoud and Al Samoud II missiles.

6-Saddam had no alibi for what happened to his remaining Scuds and launchers other than they were stolen.

7-The US has released some data of Iraqi officials hiding weapons from UNSCOM.

8-Iraq either could not or refused to supply records showing the destruction of WOMD's he admittedly had possessed even knowing that it would likely lead to war.

NOW with this evidence at hand if one states the war is unjust then they by definition do not believe the evidence. To not believe the evidence is to believe Saddam. Now if one does not believe in war for any reason that is a seperate issue and one anyone is entitled to and also one which you both deny.

As to Savant he curses at everyone and belittles people constantly and then gets whacked at even a hint towards him...although I did seem to strike a nerve.

PEACE

 

[CarAudioAddict 10+ year member]

In your list there, there was NOTHING that said that Saddam had WOMD now.

I know Saddam has no credibility, I don't believe him.

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

OK let me break it down easy. We KNOW he had them. The ONLY evidence that he still doesn't is Saddam says he doesn't. Saddam has no credibility. WHERE did they go?

Please post any link or any explanation that you REALY BELIEVE happened to them. PLEASE. Because if you CAN'T then how can you come to the conclusion that he doesn't? This is the logic of this argument which is unfathomable to anybody who seeks the reality of this situation. And this sadly isn't some Ivory tower debate of how fine a hair can be split or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The fate of civilization as we know it may be determined by the action or inaction taken.

PEACE

 

[nswartley 5,000+ posts]

hmmm, did he not fire 3 scud missles into kuwait? and then that silkworm missile yesterday?

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

Originally posted by CarAudioAddict In your list there, there was NOTHING that said that Saddam had WOMD now.

 

I know Saddam has no credibility, I don't believe him.

Tell LWW that there is a huge document where Saddam claims (with truthfullness or not) what he has and what he's destroyed. I don't think anyone wants to go through that 3k + page disclosure document to see what's what, but that's why the inspectors were back in before Bush told Saddam to fuk off no matter what.. Perhaps in that document is the claim of the destruction of those weapons, in which case he would have his 'proof' despite the odds that it would be a lie anyway, according to him.. This is exactly why I feel we needed to try to continue the inspection avenue.. Saddam would be a LOT less likely to use chem/bio/WMD on inspectors if they were to happen on them, but now that we have all those troops there, if he has them we will see a lot of loss of life..

You can't win with him, C.A.A.. he has no concept of alternatives or reasonable or what truth/proof is for that matter.. Truth is, we have no proof, yet he insists we do despite his not being able to show any of it.. all he can do is spout 'history' and conclude falsely that it forces truth in the present.. Just like he can't hold a reasonable adult debate, he has to continually revert to childish schoolyard antics of sing-songy chants, name calling, false logic, negative associations like saying "soandso is Saddam's buddy" to evoke certian feelings in the audience about his opponents, and insisting that directly correlated means causal.. Had he bothered to take any logic or science courses in college to at least try to have critical thinking skills, he wouldn't have to resort to such juvinile antics..

Here is a perfect example of his false logic and lack of critical thinking skills..

OK let me break it down easy. We KNOW he had them. The ONLY evidence that he still doesn't is Saddam says he doesn't. Saddam has no credibility. WHERE did they go?

He had them.. ok.. he said he destroyed them.. ok.. he has no credibility.. ok.. if he's drinking coffee and he says it's coffee, does that mean it's not coffee? He has no credibility so he must lie every time he speaks.. right? there is not even the chance that he could utter a truth cause he's so evil and lacks any credibility.. It's that thought, as wrong and false as it is, that has LWW believe it follows that the only valid question is "WHERE did they go?" since they have to exist because it would be impossible for them to have been destroyed as Saddam said since he can only lie.. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

Just walk away and let him sit on top of the monkey bars feeling like he's the king of the playground.. that's all he wants anyway, kind of like Bush..

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

Originally posted by nswartley hmmm, did he not fire 3 scud missles into kuwait? and then that silkworm missile yesterday?

silkworm missles are not illegal for him to have..

I believe they were talking about 2 SCUDs.. and those were ones that (presuming that's all he has/had) the UN knew were unaccounted for.. To that I'll ask again, are 2 SCUD missles worth the life of the 40+ Allied deaths, and all the other deaths associated to this war so far? not to mention that the battle at Baghdad is yet to come and is going to get real messy..

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

hmmm, did he not fire 3 scud missles into kuwait? and then that silkworm missile yesterday?

Hey nswartley! I want a link for PROOF. Saddam said he doesn't have any.//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/nono.gif.eca61d170185779e0921b0faa9704973.gif

How do we KNOW they were scuds or silkworms. The anti Saddam crowd accepts a bottle rocket (not plural) as proof. Now again I ask...how do you KNOW?

We know George started the war cause he's a cowboy. He might well have ordered it himself.//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

AND PLEASE stop using facts! Only conjecture and prejudice apply.

PEACE

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

Originally posted by LWW As to Savant he curses at everyone and belittles people constantly and then gets whacked at even a hint towards him...although I did seem to strike a nerve.

LOL.. And you don't curse? of course you do, you just think you are being slick by using the more technical term for the slang.. *********? fuk? what's the difference? none.. shit, shill, difference? none.. sorry that the common vernacular offendes your tired old anal retentive ears, but facts are facts, you do your share of cursing as far as context goes. Again, not that I'd susspect you can comprehend that given your lack of critical thinking skills..

Belittle people? yeah, when someone is too stupid to NOT say the same thing over and over yet insist on acting like each time they say it it's some epiphiny, yeah.. I beliettle them.. rednecks say "if you dont like my country get out" in the face of valid criticism, if you feel belittled for being called a redneck, then stop acting like one or **** it up.. simple.. Belittling someone for being ignorant or stupid or not being able to form simple sentences is a lot more reasonable to me than trying to associate someone to a hated figure to try and subvert the debating process. Idiots that can't form a sentence at least have the excuse of being dumb, being subversive is just plain sad and pathetic.. that's the kind of thing Saddam does, twists words to try and difuse the focus from the point.. doubletalk, the nector of the Politicians..

What the fuk is this? "and then gets whacked at even a hint towards him"?? Oh, wait, what was that about forming sentences?

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

Originally posted by nswartley hmmm, did he not fire 3 scud missles into kuwait? and then that silkworm missile yesterday?

By the way, SCUDs are not WOMD and none had chemicals or bio agents as warheads, therefore not chem or bio weapons..

And, at 375 miles in range, those aren't a direct threat to the US.. that's another one of the flipfloppy reasons Bush had.. Saddam was a "direct threat" to the US..

Also note that we did NOT go in on a premise that he had a few illegal missles, we went in on the premise that he has WOMD and chemial weapons, and maybe bio weapons.. None of which have been found ..