Closed Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: No proof of WMD?

  1. #1
    whore nikkipornoface's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    .
    Posts
    706
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    381

    No proof of WMD?

    I'm not saying this is definitive proof, but it certainly brings the arguement back to the table

    http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_...y_Findings.pdf

  2. #2
    OG shade23z's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Chi-town
    Posts
    186
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    386

    Re: No proof of WMD?

    Definitely interesting stuff. Regarding Iraqi topics other than WMD, here's an interesting article I found about Saddam's reign of terror - prepared while Clinton was still in office.

    http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/02/iraq99.htm#impact

    If only our government didn't rush to judgement and just would have let the U.N. do it's job!

  3. #3
    Banned by pornerators Jimi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    10,426
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    1381

    Re: No proof of WMD?

    Very interesting, however.... it only says that he WANTED the sanctions lifted. "The former regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions"

    All this paper says is that they planned on producing nuclear and other WMDs when UN sanctions were lifted. It doesn't even lead to any assumption that there may have been WMDs in Iraq this whole time. It's an overview of what Hussein wanted with his regime during and after the UN sanctions were in effect.

    "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be found."

    This is from your own "evidence".

  4. #4
    whore nikkipornoface's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    .
    Posts
    706
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    381

    Re: No proof of WMD?

    Hey Jimi-
    I think you need to learn to read. What did I say before the link? Did I mention "evidence"?

    Again, blind hatred rears its' head

  5. #5
    Banned by pornerators Jimi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    10,426
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    1381

    Re: No proof of WMD?

    Learn to read? What is this topic about? You did say it wasn't "definitive proof". However, you said it "brings things back to the table", basically saying that it is showing some kind of loose evidence that could be implied as Iraq having WMDs, when, in fact, it says the opposite.

    Leave the insults somewhere else. If you want to get defensive, do it by proving me wrong, not by insult.

  6. #6
    whore Esco's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Right Behind You
    Posts
    756
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    382

    Re: No proof of WMD?

    Quote Originally Posted by nikkipornoface
    Hey Jimi-
    I think you need to learn to read. What did I say before the link? Did I mention "evidence"?

    Again, blind hatred rears its' head
    No need to get personal. Isn't the whole point of posting something controversial is to generate some constructive discussion. If you were hoping for comments that only supported your position you should have never posted this to begin with.

  7. #7
    whore nikkipornoface's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    .
    Posts
    706
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    381

    Re: No proof of WMD?

    No, I was looking for comments that did not insinuate things.

    Jimi-
    You put evidence in quotes. That techniques is used to quote something that has been previously said. Since I never said evidence in my post, you assumed that I meant this as evidence.
    Next, this article has all kinds of information. Some supporting the claim of WMD, some questioning that claim. To dismiss all supporting claims while trumpeting questioning claims is foolish. You do that here.
    Fact is, I post this article to show that the discussion on Iraq and WMDs might not be as dead as people say. This article proves my point that the discussion is not dead...hence the "brings the arguement back to the table" comment.

    Constructive discussion is only valuable when people take into account the information that is present and not information that is insinuated.

    Therefore, part of Jimi's post is valuable while the other part is based purely on bias and insinuation.

    If I wanted a discussion based on insinuations, I would have used loaded words and a loaded article. Since I did not do that, I would appreciate it if the insinuations could be left for another time

  8. #8
    Banned by pornerators Jimi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    10,426
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    1381

    Re: No proof of WMD?

    It's only biased if it goes against what you're saying? I copied and pasted FROM the article given. I read nothing in the article that said that there may, in fact, be WMD in Iraq. Maybe I missed it. Rather tham getting pissed off because someone has a different idea than you, why don't YOU copy and paste what I may have missed? What insinuations did I make? Apparently, I was correct in my statement, since you said, "bring it back to the table".

Closed Thread

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Buy Twitter Followers