Un finds more unclaimed weapons!
Posted 03 February 2003 - 09:59 PM
Posted 04 February 2003 - 12:02 AM
There is, never was, and never will be any proof.
Oh, never mind, I'm talking to Randy... here's a pile of dog biscuits, I'll probably have a better go of making IT understand.
Posted 04 February 2003 - 07:27 AM
Posted 04 February 2003 - 08:05 PM
As from day one, when I first posted on the old site I simply asked for proof that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.
This, despite the bluster and posturing of various politicians and posters, has never been provided. This lack of evidence, coupled to the outright facist, racist and ignorant posts by many (not all) of the pro-War lobby has made me ever more convinced that there is no legitimate case.
I am actually quite balanced in my approach to conflict. There is never such a thing as black and white, just various shades of grey. This it true whether it is of the US and Iraq, Israel and the PLO or the UK and the IRA. I am just constantly amazed at how some posters are so ignorant and blinkered in their lives that they somehow believe that they are fighting on the side of God. This arrogance deserves the contemptous response that I, and others, am willing to give out.
Being well versed in debate I can quite happily argue any case I want - whether or not it is one I believe. While there are some equally qualified and interesting Mass Debaters here, I'm afraid that there are also a lot of masterbators.
As I, and many others, have said time and again - PRESENT SOME PROOF OF YOUR ARGUMENTS.
Posted 04 February 2003 - 10:09 PM
Do I have your argument correctly parsed? If so, consider the following.
How would you "PROVE" that you destroyed it? Take someone to a hole in the ground and say "There it WAS."
Get a clue. The burden of proof IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN on the prosecution.
Posted 04 February 2003 - 10:38 PM
You have to admit that Firecat has a point. How can you prove that something has been destroyed if, by the nature of it no longer existing, it cannot be demonstrated not to be there?
I seem to remember that Iraq has apologised for the oversight of the warhead? I doubt that I could account for everything in my house, let alone my country. I know very well that the RAF has some aircraft that it does not think it has. (I can account for one on the record (excluding location) if required, as I don't think it would cause problems.)
I am not trying to excuse Iraq, but why is the US refusing to allow the weapons inspectors time to do their job? As I said before, the only reason I can come up with is that they will find that Iraq actually has no weapons (which, to my surprise, I am starting to believe) and have to explain all the money wasted on moving troops and equipment out for a war that did not take place.
What, exactly, was in those building blown up in the first war? Suppose, just for a minute, that instead of blowing up bunkers full of women and children one of the bombs actually destroyed the majority of Iraqs WMD equipment. Iraq would hardly have admitted to it at the time, would it?
Posted 04 February 2003 - 10:56 PM
Turkey is quite happy to dispose of Kurds when it feels the need. But, of course, they are an ally, so can do what they want?
The UN set the sanctions. The UN are checking to see if the terms have been met. The UN inspectors asked for more time - so why is the US so desperate to start a war?
As to spending two years in that particular theatre. Live with it. That is what service life is about, and you knew that when you signed up. That is what you are paid for.
Posted 04 February 2003 - 11:07 PM
Of course, he may be lying. If he is, then you have to admit that the Iraqis were provided those weapons by the US government, who continued to sell them 18 months AFTER the gassing took place.
Which ugly scenario do you like the best, killer?
Posted 05 February 2003 - 02:32 AM
On that note I would like to say to those who might feel that commitment of military forces in Iraq must be avoided, I can not feel a similarity with the argument fielded by certain countries in the 1930's in reference to Germany, had there been a concerted effort to remove the Hitler, we would not faced the massive conflict that we called WW2 we now are faced with a similar issue. We can listen to the apeasers who wish to give what this new (actualy old) tyrant wants and let him become even stronger, or fight now and remove hime before he can attain his goals.
And to put it simply it will cost us less in Allied lives and money if we do it now...which is always a good thing.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users