UnderGround Forums
 

PoliticalGround >> CIA Iraq Had No WMDs in Fall 2002


12/20/06 11:14 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Information
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 20-Dec-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 14024
Sounds like someone's book sales need a boost...
12/20/06 11:49 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Information
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 20-Dec-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 14027
In any event, there were many senior Iraqi officials who believed that Hussein possessed WMD. Simply taking one official's "word" is kind of ridiculous, and Drumheller knows it. Oh, and kudos to Mr. Big's troll that brought a news story from April to the table in December...and watching everyone fall for it.
12/20/06 1:18 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jack & Coke
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 20-Dec-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 2138
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3264346530562354001 for truth
12/20/06 1:25 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
7 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 20-Dec-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18161
"There has already been WMD found in Iraq. The articles disappear rather quickly" Damned liberal media
12/20/06 1:31 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
SirPrize
20 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 20-Dec-06
Member Since: 10/04/2002
Posts: 1253
"we had it on good authority from a source within Saddam's inner circle that he didn't have AN ACTIVE PROGRAM for weapons of mass destruction" Look. I am not debating whether or not Iraq had WMD. What I *am* saying is that "having WMD" and having "an active WMD program" are two different things. You guys are distorting my cookie analogy. At first, I thought it was because you could not handle abstract thinking. Now, I believe it is intentional, because you cannot refute my argument. Again, that argument is "having WMD" =/= "having an active WMD program". Let me try another analogy... Let's say you have a factory. This factory produces... oh... I dunno... WMD. You start your factory. It becomes "active", and you produce a warehouse full of WMD. Then, you shut your factory down. It is no longer "active". What happens to that warehouse of WMD that you produced? In the real world, it does not just disappear because you shut down the factory. Now, you can destroy the WMD. You can move the WMD. However, what you do with the WMD that were produced has NOTHING to do with whether or not the factory is still active. Therefore, whether or not there were still WMDs in Iraq has nothing to do with whether or not the WMD program was active at the time.
12/20/06 1:34 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Information
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 20-Dec-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 14032
Stop with your NeoCon fancy semantics, SirPrize!
12/20/06 1:36 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Pretjah
816 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 20-Dec-06
Member Since: 04/23/2002
Posts: 20569
OH NO IT'S LOGIC!!! EVERYBODY RUN!!!!!
12/20/06 1:51 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MR BIG1
81 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 20-Dec-06
Member Since: 07/28/2002
Posts: 15529
LET ME KNOW WHEN THEY UNACTIVE WMDS ARE FOUND THANKS WHAT ABOUT THE NUKES THAT THEY HAD
12/20/06 1:53 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jerkie
48 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 20-Dec-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 23087
invaded for all the hot sluts Stronghold
12/20/06 2:05 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
7 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 20-Dec-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18163
W is under threat from the Liberal media, he has no choice but to play along, they are the people who run this country
12/20/06 2:16 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
SirPrize
20 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 20-Dec-06 02:19 PM
Member Since: 10/04/2002
Posts: 1260
"Stop with your NeoCon fancy semantics, SirPrize!" When you cannot refute someone's argument with logic, call them names. Hurray! I win! You left out "facist" and "Hitler". "you've got nothing - no logic, no reasoning, & most of all, no tangible proof. Just people like you insisting they were there." What part of this did you not understand??? "Look. I am not debating whether or not Iraq had WMD. What I *am* saying is that "having WMD" and having "an active WMD program" are two different things." I am not saying that Iraq had WMD. What I am saying is: claiming that a WMD program is not active is NOT the same thing as saying that there are no WMDs. *** Please refute THAT statement. *** "Maybe if you actually find WMD's you'll have a point" No, actually I WON'T have a point, because, because having an active WMD program is NOT the same thing as having WMDs. That would not prove my point at all. Consider these two statements: A - Iraq does not have an active WMD program. B - Iraq does not have WMDs. Does A = B?
12/20/06 2:30 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
burnsosobra
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 20-Dec-06 02:31 PM
Member Since: 06/02/2003
Posts: 228
If this whole invasion was about WMD's for some reason I think the administration could have found a few other countries that were more of a threat than Iraq ever was, think about that. The whole war is a SHAM.
12/20/06 2:54 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
SirPrize
20 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 20-Dec-06
Member Since: 10/04/2002
Posts: 1262
"How about no WMD's, no active WMD program, not ties to 9/11 (the catalyst on the "GWOT", which includes Iraq), a stupid, costly war, & people like you trying to justify it with semantics. Please refute THAT." Hmmm.... That's not the topic of this thread. If you want to debate that, then you can start another thread. I NEVER said ANYTHING about justifying the US invasion of Iraq. That is something that you guys are reading into this. I am just trying to point out that the statement that you quoted does not lead to the conclusion in this thread's title. That's IT. That's all I am debating. Since you guys cannot admit that, you have to take this thread on a tangent. Again: I am not debating the reasons we went to war. A - Iraq had no active WMD program. B - "Iraq had no WMDs in fall of 2002". You cannot conclude B, given A. A =/= B. Why do you guys refuse to admit this? That's Logic 101. It doesn't mean that there were weapons there. It doesn't mean there weren't.
12/20/06 3:18 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
SirPrize
20 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 20-Dec-06
Member Since: 10/04/2002
Posts: 1263
"If there is no weapens then theres no weapons there!!!" True. No problem, there. I agree that if now WMDs exist or existed, then they would not be found in Iraq. Are you saying that, since there was no active WMD project, there were no WMDs in Iraq?
12/20/06 3:32 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Information
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 20-Dec-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 14038
When you cannot refute someone's argument with logic, call them names. Hurray! I win! You left out "facist" and "Hitler". I should have included the sarcasm tag. I've experienced what you are going through right now numerous times. Attempt to use logic or reason on matters such as this and you will be called a NeoCon, Bush Crony or whatever other invective they can think of. Be prepared to defend the Administration's response to Katrina at some point. I'm sure someone will mention it.
12/20/06 4:14 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
SirPrize
20 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 20-Dec-06 04:17 PM
Member Since: 10/04/2002
Posts: 1264
"I should have included the sarcasm tag." Hehehe. Yeah. It's hard to tell, sometimes. I'm definitely not feelin' the love. ;) "Are you saying that, since there was no active WMD project, there were no WMDs in Iraq?" "All im saying is there is none now!!!" You still did not answer my question. Are you saying that, since there was no active WMD project, there were no WMDs in Iraq? If you want to talk about there not being any WMD there, NOW, that's fine, but you need to take that to another thread, because that is not what this discussion is about. This thread is about what the CIA said back in the fall of 2002. Please stay on topic. "you can use all the retarded logic you want" LOL. Yeah. Me using logic. How silly of me. We can't have any of THAT, now can we? ** rolls eyes ** "You suck at making cookies" Oh, I see. I suck at making cookies, therefore my argument about an active WMD program is wrong. Yeah... That makes sense. After seeing how your logic works, I now understand why I have had such a difficult time getting you to see reason. You hear one thing and jump to a faulty conclusion. When someone disagrees with you, you accuse them of using "semantics", and you go off on tangents and "Bush lied, people died" rants in order to avoid answering a very simple "yes or no" question. *** Since Iraq did not have an active WMD program in 2002, does that mean that Iraq did not have any WMD in 2002? *** I'm betting that you cannot answer with a simple "yes" or "no".
12/20/06 4:19 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Strandman
6 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 20-Dec-06
Member Since: 10/22/2002
Posts: 4183
So.....the Iraqi Foreign Minister would never lie?
12/21/06 8:44 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Hobbes
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 21-Dec-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 14963
Strandman it's not that he wouldn't lie, 'cause he was either lying to the US about being a double agent or lying to Sadam about being loyal. He is a liar. Of course the WMD were in Iraq at one point, the US supplied Sadam with them to kill his neighbours. He just happened to use them on his own people too. However, the mounting evidence that Iraq did not have WMD just before the invasion should have given the Bush Reich pause to consider that there may have been no WMD in Iraq and let the UN inspectors finish their jobs - which they must have since they said they looked everywhere they wanted to look, and found no WMD. Run on sentence, I wish Bushog were here to help me with my grammer. Everything is pointing to the conclusion stated earlier: Bush and Co. had policy set to invade Iraq to do nation building in America's image, they were just looking for intellegence to support the invasion and ignored intellegence that pointed to the contrary. What baffles me is why the American people aren't screaming for blood. This Regime has in effect murdered over 3,000 of your own youth through deception and lies. They've caused a perpetual deficit that will slow and perhaps one day cripple your economy. Your allies are alienated, any good will you had in the world is gone, Americans are the most hated people on the planet. Why no call for impeachment?
12/21/06 8:47 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
EVILYOSHIDA
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 21-Dec-06
Member Since: 12/03/2003
Posts: 10838
lol @ the former CIA director that said that there has been NO CONSPIRACY IN US HISTORY!
12/21/06 8:50 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Pretjah
816 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 21-Dec-06
Member Since: 04/23/2002
Posts: 20582
" Why no call for impeachment?"

Because the majority of american's still support the war in iraq

i just saw on CNN's ticker yesterday that Rice is receiving a national 57% approval rating!  that's 57% of the people are approving of what she's doing with our foreign policy!!!!!      
12/21/06 8:53 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
7 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 21-Dec-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18174
Hmm then why the midterm election results?
12/21/06 9:01 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Hobbes
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 21-Dec-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 14964
"Because the majority of american's still support the war in iraq" Astounding. What would be best for the west (us in Canada too) would be for the US to hold it's course (with corrections where needed) and create a western style democracy in Iraq. Being pragmatic I fully understand why the policy to invade Iraq was set in stone. What's best for the Iraqi people would be for a pan-Arab policing force to move into Iraq and the US forces to move out. I think this would slow much of the violence between Iraqi and Iraqi and the "insurgents" (freedom fighters). If, instead of invading, the US would have invested $2 billion a week into alternative energy sources and research and development maybe we could be rid of the middle east much sooner. They're a fucking pain in the ass, midevel society in modern times. But does that give us the right to invade thier country and kill hundreds of thousands of them to maintain our current way of life?
12/21/06 9:16 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Hobbes
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 21-Dec-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 14965
"All the polls I've seen say the majority think the invasion was a mistake and that we should get out as soon as possible. " I agree that the invasion was a mistake, from the posts I've read from Steve72, hubris and others I feel that Bush and Co. are guilty of war crimes and should be tried, convicted and hung. Never happen until leprechauns control all major governments. I do not agree that you should pull out, until there is a real plan (not a bush plan) to rebuild the country and when the US is not part of that plan. The US and Britan destroyed that country on false pretenses and has a moral responsibility to see that the damage is repaired.
12/21/06 10:05 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Pretjah
816 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 21-Dec-06
Member Since: 04/23/2002
Posts: 20586
"IRAQ DID NOT HAVE A WEAPONS PROGRAM IN 2002 DOES THAT MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER."


LOLOLOLOL  nope can't give a simple yes or no answer to the question


"does that mean that Iraq did not have any WMD in 2002?" the word PROGRAM is not in the question!!!!

DID IRAQ HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION  (notice no word program here) in 2002?  YES OR NO?  
12/21/06 10:12 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Hobbes
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 21-Dec-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 14968
How 'bout this analogy (my charts are fucked this morning so I've got time to play). Seemore I'll use you in the example cause you just posted :) 1. I give Seemore a gun to defend himself against his neighbours, who I wouldn't mind seeing dead. 2. I later think: "Seemore's got a gun which he might give to his neighbours to shoot me with, he better get rid of it or I'll shoot him." 3. hubris searches Seemore and tells me that he can't find a gun. 4. Information, who is one of Seemore's friends in this example, comes to me secretly and tells me that Seemore got rid of his gun. Information wants special treatment when I take Seemore down. 5. I tell everyone that Seemore is lying about getting rid of the gun and shoot him in the head so he's not a threat to me anymore. Did I do the right thing by shooting Seemore in the head? Sorry you're dead Seemore, I'll miss you buddy.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.