Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Countrydave55

75% Of Al Quida Killed Or Captured

Recommended Posts

Apparently not everybody thought they had WMD; the UN didn't think so,

Um...yes they did......

 

If not, then please explain the need for the inspectors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....i just read that 350 tons of materials that can be used to blow up buildings n' whathaveyou is missing from it's 'stronghold' in Iraq.

...I thought everyone said they wouldn't anything there...

Redneck and a Proud American..Posted Image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got a solution!!!!!

 

 

Lets all just screw each other until we're the same colour, forget religion and then there would be nothing to hate. We'd all be happy then. :)

Um...you change colors doing that? :P

 

Like a chameleon? :woot:

 

 

Wow....I can't do that.... :blink:

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um...you change colors doing that? :P

 

Like a chameleon? :woot:

 

 

Wow....I can't do that.... :blink:

 

;)

Da kids mate, da kids. :rolleyes:

 

Like everything else it takes time. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It never has been a democracy at the federal level, its a republic

 

 

Well, now we got that straight we can safely ignore allusions to democracy, democratic process, democratic principles etc, it should be republican process and republican principles etc? - thanks for that .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um...yes they did......

 

If not, then please explain the need for the inspectors.

OK, I'll have a crack at this.

 

"Inspectors" are there to inspect for WMD - to establish the veracity of the claim. I.E. to sort out finally whther or not there were WMD.

 

One needs to establish the fact first - that was what the UN inspectors were for.

 

They didn't.

 

But by then of course....

 

If they had been sent in to prove WMD did exist then I suspect they would have been the UN WMD Verification Group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US is indeed a republic. A Republic uses the democratic process of elections to choose it's representatives.

 

a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US is indeed a republic. A Republic uses the democratic process of elections to choose it's representatives.

 

 

So what's democratic about candidates "losing" the popular vote becoming president? Isn't it the case that the majority did not vote for the president? How is that democratic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We use a democratic process of elections.

 

The electoral college is merely a means of implementing the process.

 

Democracy does not mean mob rule.

 

As flawed as the system is, it is the one we have.

 

It can be changed, Colorado is trying now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Inspectors" are there to inspect for WMD - to establish the veracity of the claim. I.E. to sort out finally whther or not there were WMD

 

One needs to establish the fact first - that was what the UN inspectors were for.

 

They didn't.

 

You must have been sleeping for the last 20 years.

 

We know for a FACT that Iran had WMDs. Thats why the inspectors were there.

 

We know for a FACT that WMDs were used by Iraq against some of their enemies in the past 20 years.

 

The fact was established several years ago and the inspectors were there to verify that all WMDs were destroyed and that no more were being produced by Saddams regime.

 

 

 

And I'll add for good measure that the 380,000 pounds of high explosives that JOHN KERRY claims the Bush admin gave away to the terrorists, DID NOT EXIST and WERE NOT THERE when the US military entered those barracks where they were thought to be held.

ANOTHER JK LIE just to manipulate the voters.

 

380,000 pounds of high explosives or the 400,000 tons of explosives that the military destroyed ARE NOT WMDs, so they were not a threat at any time, based on the general consensus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I'll have a crack at this.

 

"Inspectors" are there to inspect for WMD - to establish the veracity of the claim. I.E. to sort out finally whther or not there were WMD.

 

One needs to establish the fact first - that was what the UN inspectors were for.

 

They didn't.

 

But by then of course....

 

If they had been sent in to prove WMD did exist then I suspect they would have been the UN WMD Verification Group.

But wait a minute....why inspect if you truly believe that they don't exist?

 

The fact is they did NOT prove they were not there, they were prevented by Iraq from conducting proper inspections. The only reason we know as much as we do now is because we invaded!

 

 

Did the inspectors find the mobile chemical weapons labs? No, the US military did.

 

 

So I ask again, if they knew or believed there was no WMD why inspect at all?

 

The answer is they did not know, nor did they believe there were none.

 

In fact they did believe there was WMD, they just didn't wish to follow the US course of action. Don't make the mistake of assuming that just because they did not support invasion that they did not believe the intelligence.

 

 

Apparently not everybody thought they had WMD; the UN didn't think so,

I don't recall them refuting the intelligence at the time, only the course of action.

Edited by Chopdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But wait a minute....why inspect if you truly believe that they don't exist?

 

The fact is they did NOT prove they were not there, they were prevented by Iraq from conducting proper inspections. The only reason we know as much as we do now is because we invaded!

 

 

Did the inspectors find the mobile chemical weapons labs? No, the US military did.

 

 

So I ask again, if they knew or believed there was no WMD why inspect at all?

 

The answer is they did not know, nor did they believe there were none.

 

In fact they did believe there was WMD, they just didn't wish to follow the US course of action. Don't make the mistake of assuming that just because they did not support invasion that they did not believe the intelligence.

 

 

 

 

I don't recall them refuting the intelligence at the time, only the course of action.

So they made a guess that Iraq did not have WMD and Bush guessed they did. The UN is 1/1 and Bush is 0/1, bad guess by Bush costs 10,000+ Iraqi's their lives. Maybe people should stop playing games with people's lives and just do it right initially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As flawed as the system is, it is the one we have.

 

It can be changed, Colorado is trying now.

Proportional Representation would change the face of UK government. It's been supressed for decades.

eDemocracy will be a more democratic democracy- people will be counted, not geographical areas. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

You must have been sleeping for the last 20 years.

 

We know for a FACT that Iran had WMDs. Thats why the inspectors were there.

 

We know for a FACT that WMDs were used by Iraq against some of their enemies in the past 20 years.

 

 

Iraqs enemies? Name them. I remeber Saddam Hussein using chemicla weapons against his own people (JKurds as I recall) but not agianst "Iraq's enemies".

 

That's about all I recall as FACT. The only FACT that I recall being established.

 

As I recall the weapons inspectors were in place to inspect.

 

Then again I'm only sleeping....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

eDemocracy is not an option as it only involves those with internet access.

Isn't that like saying that historic voting processes only involved those with a pencil ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iraqs enemies? Name them. I remeber Saddam Hussein using chemicla weapons against his own people (JKurds as I recall) but not agianst "Iraq's enemies".

 

 

to the best of my knowledge he also used them against Iran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He used Scud missiles against Israel, they were armed with conventional explosives at the time, not nuclear or chemical agents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that like saying that historic voting processes only involved those with a pencil ?

they provide the pencil, I'll be damned if they provide you with a PC and internet though :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that like saying that historic voting processes only involved those with a pencil ?

no but literacy used to be a requirement so it would be very similar due to the literacy rate of the past

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to the best of my knowledge he also used them against Iran

He did :)

 

He used the weapons that the US gave him in 1984 against Iran, that was over a decade ago, why now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to the best of my knowledge he also used them against Iran

Yes he did use them against Iran, with US support, by Reagan, Bush and Rumsfeld.

 

Rumsfeld was meeting with and chumming up to Saddaam while he was committing these crimes with the US's full knowlege.

 

To condone his actions and then 15 to 20 years later say they were criminal is the worst hipocricy ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...