US finds evidence of WMD at last
- Thread starter Trond
- Start date
True, but the US government did take a very "holier than thou" attitude to Iraq - which so far has shown no signs of not having destroyed all its biological weapons.
"The Guardian" 
Not that such things should be swept under the rug, but "journalists" really should at least attempt to APPEAR impartial and without obvious bias or agenda.
Not that such things should be swept under the rug, but "journalists" really should at least attempt to APPEAR impartial and without obvious bias or agenda.
Dream on...Originally posted by llkoolkeg
"The Guardian"
Not that such things should be swept under the rug, but "journalists" really should at least attempt to APPEAR impartial and without obvious bias or agenda.
Do you really believe in the existence of non-biased journalists? How about elves, the tooth fairy and Santa Claus?
(Please note that I refrained from putting God in the previous question due to the controversy that one still evokes....)
Didn't you get pissed at me for questioning the lack of evidence of Iraq destroying its WMD? In fact the lack of chemicals proving the lack of chemicals?Originally posted by LordOpie
Oh, you're just still pissed at us for that thing a couple hundred years ago
It must be tough for the US to remain so holier than thou when they have more WMD than anyone else..
Oh yeah, I forgot the great logic...Originally posted by LordOpie
Since this has been discussed before (many times) and you continue to get slapped down with logic and reason by so many...
hmmm, I must have missed the logic in this thread. How about trying it before you claim your logic overcame someone else's argument. I also hope that you have a better argument that Iraq presents a special case because it was charged with destroying its WMD. NOW it seems as if Iraq may even have destroyed its WMDs before the war. Even Rumsfeld or Powell have publicly admitted that possibility. Am I going to cry about Saddam's fall? No, he was a SOB. But, I do get pissed when someone tries to talk about logic and then uses a pic of the pope to focus attention away from his argument. By the way I do like the pic of the pope.
try hanging out in this forum just a wee bit more often. Fluff and I have had discussions in many other threads, so you're lack of forum history is why you think I'm refering to some debate in this particular thread. I stopped trying to have discussions with him some time ago.
Umm, so what was your point? You went from me/fluff to Rums/Powell, to Saddam, and back again to me/fluff... my head is spinning... and I don't know what you were trying to say.
Is it that Iraq destroyed their WMDs? If so, then why didn't they just show the proof to the UN? If they showed the proof of destruction and dismantling, then the US would've had no justification to invade.
Actually, Iraq always claimed they had submitted as much proof as they could. It was just never enough for the U.S. who claimed their intelligence proved that WMD existed. I think it is undisputed that Bush had his own agenda. However, regardless of whether WMD actually did exist, the US intelligence proved worthless and false (with the exception of the existence of Mobile Labs).
Just to start with, hopefully I did not make this personal by indirectly attacking your agrument earlier on. If I did, I did not mean to do so. On another note, it is obvious that the proof that Saddam did have WMD did not convince the UN to go to war. Otherwise Bush would have asked for a vote. He did not! Oddly enough, at the time I too believed that Saddam had WMD. However, I am not so sure anymore. US intelligence has suffered many setbacks recently; 9/11, saddam's bunker (or lack thereof), the political strength of Shiites in Southern Iraq, Iraqi military tactics, ... . While you probably will disagree with some of the intelligence failures i have listed, you probably would agree that there are many more. As such, I am not sure I can trust any statements made by the government the veracity of which I cannot independently verify.
As has been said the UN didn't feel force was necessary and didn't Scot Ritter make statements that Iraq was disarming?
If you'd like to post the links to your great logic arguments I can take another look but I don't remember too many. If I walk away from an argument it's only because it has turned from a debate where people actually read what I have written and try to understand the point into a pointless restatement of opinion.
I use rather fewer personal insults than most here too, but I guess you haven't taken note of that either?
I believe some journalists ATTEMPT to be unbiased with mixed results. And why do you bring up elves, the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus? Do you question their existance as well?
As for God, you're free to believe what you want and I'll do the same. I personally don't bother trying to turn people onto God who are not ready to hear the message. It's like sending someone to rehab before they've bottomed out. Belief does not take seed in minds made of asphalt. (This is not meant to be a quantification of your mental prowess, BTW.)
We'll leave the tooth fairies, elves and Santa for now...Originally posted by llkoolkeg
I believe some journalists ATTEMPT to be unbiased with mixed results. And why do you bring up elves, the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus? Do you question their existance as well?
As for God, you're free to believe what you want and I'll do the same. I personally don't bother trying to turn people onto God who are not ready to hear the message. It's like sending someone to rehab before they've bottomed out. Belief dows not take seed in minds made of asphalt. (This is not meant to be a quantification of your mental prowess, BTW.)
Sorry about bringing up God, I fully respect other's belief in God and I did not take any slight on my mental prowess (I was too dumb to spot that anyway....)