Why does the left continue to HUMILIATE themselves on the WMD issue?

[Mac1958]

.

Our Internet Rambo community...

.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Awww, poor, demented, choadbreath. Once again, your ever changing position, changes.



First you said there was no doubt they discussed yellowcake. Then you said it was likely that they discussed yellowcake. You said it was highly probable they discussed yellowcake. And despite all of your foaming and ranting and spittle, you've been shown what I said ... they never discussed yellowcake. It wasn't likely, as you idiotically claimed ... it wasn't highly probable, like you moronically insisted ... they didn't discuss it.

Now have Nurse Ratched change your droop cup, it's overflowing.

^ see how you liars lie? Well, that's ok. The rest of us see it, ya Fauny.

I made one statement that I reasonably felt obliged to amend. I therefore conceded a point. I agreed that it is inaccurate to say that there was "no doubt" that the effort was to buy Uranium. I amended it to reflect that it's more accurately seen as the most likely probability. That's not an ever changing position, ya dishonest hack. It's called honesty.

You wouldn't understand, obviously. You've never had any experience being honest.

Anyway, the facts remain the facts. And the basic fact is that Niger had a national export total business that was about 50% Uranium. When Iraqis came to Niger to discuss business opportunities, they were pretty obviously intent on discussing Uranium since there's ZERO reason to believe they were there to discuss cowpeas, onions or anything else.

You can't address that on a factual (much less an honest) basis, so you whine and lie and squirm.

Carry on. But everyone already sees what a Fauny you are.

You moron. I didn't bring up your original comment to say were wrong on that point since you've already conceded it -- I brought it up to show how your position keeps changing.

You started with saying there was no doubt they discussed Uranium ... to saying it was likely they discussed Uranium ... to finally conceding they didn't discuss Uranium.

You have no fucking idea what you're talking about, which is why you have to keep changing your fluid position at it crumbles before you.

Nope.

I originally said that there was no doubt that the topic was uranium.

And, of course, to the extent that they came to discuss business, it is probable that it was uranium. There simply was no other "business" topic worth discussing between representatives of Saddam's Iraq and anybody in power in Niger. (hint: over 50% of Niger's total export business was uranium and there wouldn't have been much reason to get the boys NOT to discuss cowpeas or onions, you idiot.)

The only thing I have conceded is that I overstated the case when I said there was "no doubt." There's no substantive doubt, but that's not QUITE the same thing. Therefore, I was right to amend what I said to properly note that the conclusion is a matter of probability.

Everything else is just you belching and farting.

Now, before you toddle away, you need to be publicly reminded that you still haven't found your tiny gonads long enough to admit that YOU made an ignorant statement that YOU cannot support.

I like to bring that back to the forefront with you, from time to time, so as to highlight your evasive dishonest pussy nature.

 

[Faun]

^ see how you liars lie? Well, that's ok. The rest of us see it, ya Fauny.

I made one statement that I reasonably felt obliged to amend. I therefore conceded a point. I agreed that it is inaccurate to say that there was "no doubt" that the effort was to buy Uranium. I amended it to reflect that it's more accurately seen as the most likely probability. That's not an ever changing position, ya dishonest hack. It's called honesty.

You wouldn't understand, obviously. You've never had any experience being honest.

Anyway, the facts remain the facts. And the basic fact is that Niger had a national export total business that was about 50% Uranium. When Iraqis came to Niger to discuss business opportunities, they were pretty obviously intent on discussing Uranium since there's ZERO reason to believe they were there to discuss cowpeas, onions or anything else.

You can't address that on a factual (much less an honest) basis, so you whine and lie and squirm.

Carry on. But everyone already sees what a Fauny you are.

You moron. I didn't bring up your original comment to say were wrong on that point since you've already conceded it -- I brought it up to show how your position keeps changing.

You started with saying there was no doubt they discussed Uranium ... to saying it was likely they discussed Uranium ... to finally conceding they didn't discuss Uranium.

You have no fucking idea what you're talking about, which is why you have to keep changing your fluid position at it crumbles before you.

Nope.

I originally said that there was no doubt that the topic was uranium.

And, of course, to the extent that they came to discuss business, it is probable that it was uranium. There simply was no other "business" topic worth discussing between representatives of Saddam's Iraq and anybody in power in Niger. (hint: over 50% of Niger's total export business was uranium and there wouldn't have been much reason to get the boys NOT to discuss cowpeas or onions, you idiot.)

The only thing I have conceded is that I overstated the case when I said there was "no doubt." There's no substantive doubt, but that's not QUITE the same thing. Therefore, I was right to amend what I said to properly note that the conclusion is a matter of probability.

Everything else is just you belching and farting.

Now, before you toddle away, you need to be publicly reminded that you still haven't found your tiny gonads long enough to admit that YOU made an ignorant statement that YOU cannot support.

I like to bring that back to the forefront with you, from time to time, so as to highlight your evasive dishonest pussy nature.

Choadbreath, sans proof to the contrary, my comment remains intact despite your mouth foaming rants. There still remains no proof that Iraq sought to purchase yeellowcake. You failed miserably to prove your statement that they did. As far as your overactive imagination of why the Iraqis met with Niger's PM, it could have been to discuss selling oil for all you know.

And there was absolutely no "gathering threat" of a mushroom cloud over an American city as Iraq had no active nuclear program.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

.... <<[prior stuff snipped]>>

Choadbreath, sans proof to the contrary, my comment remains intact despite your mouth foaming rants. There still remains no proof that Iraq sought to purchase yeellowcake. You failed miserably to prove your statement that they did. As far as your overactive imagination of why the Iraqis met with Niger's PM, it could have been to discuss selling oil for all you know.

And there was absolutely no "gathering threat" of a mushroom cloud over an American city as Iraq had no active nuclear program.

Dick suck, your completely asshole utterly empty claim notwithstanding, there is still NO evidence of any kind whatsoever that the topic of the "business" discussion sought by Saddam's Iraqi businessmen was, or even was likely to be, anything OTHER THAN one involving Uranium.

You know it. You are too dishonest to admit it.

We all know it. We are not dishonest, so we readily admit it.

Your empty claim is without support.

You are a Fauny.

 

[expatriate]

.... <<[prior stuff snipped]>>

Choadbreath, sans proof to the contrary, my comment remains intact despite your mouth foaming rants. There still remains no proof that Iraq sought to purchase yeellowcake. You failed miserably to prove your statement that they did. As far as your overactive imagination of why the Iraqis met with Niger's PM, it could have been to discuss selling oil for all you know.

And there was absolutely no "gathering threat" of a mushroom cloud over an American city as Iraq had no active nuclear program.

Dick suck, your completely asshole utterly empty claim notwithstanding, there is still NO evidence of any kind whatsoever that the topic of the "business" discussion sought by Saddam's Iraqi businessmen was, or even was likely to be, anything OTHER THAN one involving Uranium.

You know it. You are too dishonest to admit it.

We all know it. We are not dishonest, so we readily admit it.

Your empty claim is without support.

You are a Fauny.

isn't all you've got really just opinions? You can claim to believe whatever the fuck you want to believe, but certainly you must realize that such opinions are not the stuff by which America - or any other country, for that matter - decides foreign policy, decides when to put our troops in harm's way. Conjecture, and supposition are not reasons to turn young American men and women into cannon fodder.

AGAIN... two lies: Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's... and Saddam and OBL were butt buddies. Both lies needed to sink into the viscera of the American people and truly enrage and simultaneously scare the shit out of them... only then would forgetting about Osama bin Laden and focusing on Saddam Hussein make ANY sense. Only then would invading a country would had ZERO to do with attacking us seem reasonable.

And in so doing, we eliminated the only man in the region that could keep sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another in Iraq... could keep Islamic extremists from using Iraq as a staging ground and a recruiting gold mine, and could act as an effective foil against Iranian regional hegemony. Toppling Saddam and bogging ourselves down in Iraq instead of staying nimble and aggressively seeking out and destroying AQ has made us less safe. Thanks for supporting that debacle. moron.

 

[nodoginnafight]

you guys STILL smoking Bush's WMD crack?

Man, some people are obviously stupid by choice.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

you guys STILL smoking Bush's WMD crack?

Man, some people are obviously stupid by choice.

Like all you asshole scumbag liberal deniers of reality who contend that Saddam didn't have any WMDs.



Recognizing that you are an asshole is the first step in becoming (with luck) less of an asshole, you asshole.

 

[Faun]

.... <<[prior stuff snipped]>>

Choadbreath, sans proof to the contrary, my comment remains intact despite your mouth foaming rants. There still remains no proof that Iraq sought to purchase yeellowcake. You failed miserably to prove your statement that they did. As far as your overactive imagination of why the Iraqis met with Niger's PM, it could have been to discuss selling oil for all you know.

And there was absolutely no "gathering threat" of a mushroom cloud over an American city as Iraq had no active nuclear program.

Dick suck, your completely asshole utterly empty claim notwithstanding, there is still NO evidence of any kind whatsoever that the topic of the "business" discussion sought by Saddam's Iraqi businessmen was, or even was likely to be, anything OTHER THAN one involving Uranium.

You know it. You are too dishonest to admit it.

We all know it. We are not dishonest, so we readily admit it.

Your empty claim is without support.

You are a Fauny.

Choadbreath, other than your single digit IQ and your overactive imagination, you have absolutely no fucking clue what they discussed other than they DIDN'T discuss Uranium. For all you know, and you know nothing, they went to sell oil to Niger.

Carry on.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

.... <<[prior stuff snipped]>>

Choadbreath, sans proof to the contrary, my comment remains intact despite your mouth foaming rants. There still remains no proof that Iraq sought to purchase yeellowcake. You failed miserably to prove your statement that they did. As far as your overactive imagination of why the Iraqis met with Niger's PM, it could have been to discuss selling oil for all you know.

And there was absolutely no "gathering threat" of a mushroom cloud over an American city as Iraq had no active nuclear program.

Dick suck, your completely asshole utterly empty claim notwithstanding, there is still NO evidence of any kind whatsoever that the topic of the "business" discussion sought by Saddam's Iraqi businessmen was, or even was likely to be, anything OTHER THAN one involving Uranium.

You know it. You are too dishonest to admit it.

We all know it. We are not dishonest, so we readily admit it.

Your empty claim is without support.

You are a Fauny.

isn't all you've got really just opinions? ....

No. Thanks for asking.

Facts are clear. Saddam had had WMDs. Saddam had USED WMDs. Saddam had had plenty of yellow cake and a nuclear program. Saddam wanted to have a reconstituted nuclear program. Saddam fucked around with the inspectors.
Saddam, himself, made claims about having WMDs. Under all the circumstances, the logical conclusion was that he either still had them or that he was working toward getting more of them.

Later, some WMDs were found IN Iraq.

History and facts laugh at dipshits like you.

 

[Faun]

Dick suck, your completely asshole utterly empty claim notwithstanding, there is still NO evidence of any kind whatsoever that the topic of the "business" discussion sought by Saddam's Iraqi businessmen was, or even was likely to be, anything OTHER THAN one involving Uranium.

You know it. You are too dishonest to admit it.

We all know it. We are not dishonest, so we readily admit it.

Your empty claim is without support.

You are a Fauny.

isn't all you've got really just opinions? ....

No. Thanks for asking.

Facts are clear. Saddam had had WMDs. Saddam had USED WMDs. Saddam had had plenty of yellow cake and a nuclear program. Saddam waned to have a reconstituted nuclear program. Saddam fucked around with the inspectors.
Saddam, himself, made claims about having WMDs. Under all the circumstances, the logical conclusion was that he either still had them or that he was working toward getting more of them.

Later, some WMDs were found IN Iraq.

History and facts laugh at dipshits like you.

Holy shit, you're brain dead. The WMD found there were from the 1980's and early 90's. That showed he had no active WMD development programs. The WMD Bush talked about weren't even there. There was no gathering threat, loser.

 

[expatriate]

Dick suck, your completely asshole utterly empty claim notwithstanding, there is still NO evidence of any kind whatsoever that the topic of the "business" discussion sought by Saddam's Iraqi businessmen was, or even was likely to be, anything OTHER THAN one involving Uranium.

You know it. You are too dishonest to admit it.

We all know it. We are not dishonest, so we readily admit it.

Your empty claim is without support.

You are a Fauny.

isn't all you've got really just opinions? ....

No. Thanks for asking.

Facts are clear. Saddam had had WMDs. Saddam had USED WMDs. Saddam had had plenty of yellow cake and a nuclear program. Saddam waned to have a reconstituted nuclear program. Saddam fucked around with the inspectors.
Saddam, himself, made claims about having WMDs. Under all the circumstances, the logical conclusion was that he either still had them or that he was working toward getting more of them.

Later, some WMDs were found IN Iraq.

History and facts laugh at dipshits like you.

You claim your opinion is a logical conclusion. You need to accept the fact that others might logically disagree. Dubya himself admitted that Saddam did not have WMD's. Aged, degraded, rusty, decades old chemical artillery shells are NOT weapons of mass destruction. WMD's, by definition,need to be capable of MASS destruction. Nothing Saddam had in 2003 fit that description regardless of your wanting them to.

And the fact that you edited my post to avoid discussing points you were unable to refute was lost on no one.

 

[Faun]

isn't all you've got really just opinions? ....

No. Thanks for asking.

Facts are clear. Saddam had had WMDs. Saddam had USED WMDs. Saddam had had plenty of yellow cake and a nuclear program. Saddam waned to have a reconstituted nuclear program. Saddam fucked around with the inspectors.
Saddam, himself, made claims about having WMDs. Under all the circumstances, the logical conclusion was that he either still had them or that he was working toward getting more of them.

Later, some WMDs were found IN Iraq.

History and facts laugh at dipshits like you.

You claim your opinion is a logical conclusion. You need to accept the fact that others might logically disagree. Dubya himself admitted that Saddam did not have WMD's. Aged, degraded, rusty, decades old chemical artillery shells are NOT weapons of mass destruction. WMD's, by definition,need to be capable of MASS destruction. Nothing Saddam had in 2003 fit that description regardless of your wanting them to.

And the fact that you edited my post to avoid discussing points you were unable to refute was lost on no one.

Here's a blatant lie Bush told ...

After Saddam Hussein allowed the weapons inspectors back into Iraq with unfettered access in November, 2002 (New team, technology heading to Iraq), Bush said ...

"The larger point is and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region. I firmly believe the decisions we made will make America more secure and the world more peaceful" ~ George Bush, 7.14.2003

WMDs: Did Iraq ever have them?​

 

[jtpr312]

I really don't understand how the leftists can continue to deny Sadam had WMD's when there is abundant evidence, from both civilized and muslim sources, that show HE USED WMD'S on many occassions.

 

[editec]

I really don't understand how the leftists can continue to deny Sadam had WMD's when there is abundant evidence, from both civilized and muslim sources, that show HE USED WMD'S on many occassions.

He used chemical weapons on the Kurds that is definitely true.

Many of us, myself included, refute the claim that those are weapons of MASS destruction.

they're not.

They're tactical weapons with very limited killing power.

So what that means is that this isn't a debate about the facts, its a rhetorical debate about what a WMD is.

 

[jtpr312]

I really don't understand how the leftists can continue to deny Sadam had WMD's when there is abundant evidence, from both civilized and muslim sources, that show HE USED WMD'S on many occassions.

He used chemical weapons on the Kurds that is definitely true.

Many of us, myself included, refute the claim that those are weapons of MASS destruction.

they're not.

They're tactical weapons with very limited killing power.

So what that means is that this isn't a debate about the facts, its a rhetorical debate about what a WMD is.

You can refute it all you wish to, that doesn't make it so. Chemical weapons ARE defined as WMD's. Below you will numerous defintions of the phrases WMD's and NBC Weapons, which EVERY reputable source, which leaves out liberals and their news propogandists out of course.

NBC Weapon-weapon of mass destruction (WMD). Weapon with the capacity to inflict death and destruction indiscriminately and on a massive scale.

Weapon of mass destruction-The most widely used definition of "weapons of mass destruction" is that of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons (NBC)

NBC Weapons-Noun, 1. weapon of mass destruction - a weapon that kills or injures civilian as well as military personnel (nuclear and chemical and biological weapons) ...

Brittanica; Weapons of mass destrcution; weaponary-Modern weapons of mass destruction are either nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons—frequently referred to collectively as NBC weapons.

There's dozens more.

 

[expatriate]

I really don't understand how the leftists can continue to deny Sadam had WMD's when there is abundant evidence, from both civilized and muslim sources, that show HE USED WMD'S on many occassions.

Having viable chemical weapons in the 1980's is NOT synonymous with having them two decades later. The shelf life on those things is like strawberries.

And nothing Saddan EVER had - even if it WERE viable - would create a "mushroom cloud over an American city".

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I really don't understand how the leftists can continue to deny Sadam had WMD's when there is abundant evidence, from both civilized and muslim sources, that show HE USED WMD'S on many occassions.

Having viable chemical weapons in the 1980's is NOT synonymous with having them two decades later. The shelf life on those things is like strawberries.

^ said because it is what he wants to believe it;and he doesn't care at all that it is an ignorant thing to claim.

 

[expatriate]

Instead of "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud over a American city".... why didn't Condi Rice just pull out ALL the stops and just say that she didn't want the smoking gun to be a giant hole in North America blasted by an anti-matter phaser beam from an orbiting intergallactic starship summoned by Saddam? It would have been just as factually based, and WAY more scary!

 

[expatriate]

I really don't understand how the leftists can continue to deny Sadam had WMD's when there is abundant evidence, from both civilized and muslim sources, that show HE USED WMD'S on many occassions.

Having viable chemical weapons in the 1980's is NOT synonymous with having them two decades later. The shelf life on those things is like strawberries.

^ said because it is what he wants to believe it;and he doesn't care at all that it is an ignorant thing to claim.

As a retired naval officer with decades of experience in munitions, I actually can speak with a lack of ignorance about the subject. You? Not so much.

 

[editec]

I really don't understand how the leftists can continue to deny Sadam had WMD's when there is abundant evidence, from both civilized and muslim sources, that show HE USED WMD'S on many occassions.

He used chemical weapons on the Kurds that is definitely true.

Many of us, myself included, refute the claim that those are weapons of MASS destruction.

they're not.

They're tactical weapons with very limited killing power.

So what that means is that this isn't a debate about the facts, its a rhetorical debate about what a WMD is.

You can refute it all you wish to, that doesn't make it so. Chemical weapons ARE defined as WMD's. Below you will numerous defintions of the phrases WMD's and NBC Weapons, which EVERY reputable source, which leaves out liberals and their news propogandists out of course.

NBC Weapon-weapon of mass destruction (WMD). Weapon with the capacity to inflict death and destruction indiscriminately and on a massive scale.

Weapon of mass destruction-The most widely used definition of "weapons of mass destruction" is that of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons (NBC)

NBC Weapons-Noun, 1. weapon of mass destruction - a weapon that kills or injures civilian as well as military personnel (nuclear and chemical and biological weapons) ...

Brittanica; Weapons of mass destrcution; weaponary-Modern weapons of mass destruction are either nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons—frequently referred to collectively as NBC weapons.

There's dozens more.

Nobody denies that chemical weapons ARe weapons.

But Define MASS destruction for me. Be specific.

How much area does a chemical attack include?

Is a chemical attack more destructive or deadly than a carpet bombing with napalm?

The answer is no, chemical weapons are NOT more destructive than CONVENTIONAL weapons.

There's the problem wqith calloing them weapons of MASS destruction.

That's not reality, kiddo, that hyperbole.

Chemical weapons do not meet the criteria that makes them suitable as a MASS weapon.

Until recently the term for those weapons were that they were part of the NBC warfare arsenal.

And this new definition of WMDs is entirely contrived FOR the purpose of making an scary excuse to invade this nation.