|
|
Post by Galadon on Nov 3, 2004 13:11:59 GMT -5
Now would saddam keep WMD out in the open or try to hide them?
|
|
|
|
Post by Challenger on Nov 3, 2004 13:34:15 GMT -5
do what the USA does and hide them naturaly  Come on Galadon, your using the aruement that as we can't find his and he can't find ours he must have hid them just as well as we did thus he must have them. All I can say is if Sadam did have WMD and I ever need a place to hide I'll set up camp right next to them. Challenger |
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Nov 3, 2004 16:11:53 GMT -5
You see the thing is there is proof saddam used WMDs before. The UN gave him plenty of time to move them to another country. If you were a criminal and was tip off the police were coming, wouldn't you move any evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Challenger on Nov 3, 2004 16:31:45 GMT -5
I'm not going to be swayed by 10 year old evidence Galadon. You simply cannot claim that having proof someone owned something that long ago is proof they have it now.
Your point is valid in as much as its what he could have done. However as he didn't deploy them this time round I think its a safer bet he just got ride of them. I mean if your going to get invaded over WMD you may as well use them on the invaders.
Challenger
|
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Nov 3, 2004 16:44:03 GMT -5
Ah so your point would be if you can't find it they don't have it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Challenger on Nov 3, 2004 17:03:41 GMT -5
Thats my point of view yes
Yours appears to be lack of proof is some kind of proof.
Challenger
|
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Nov 3, 2004 17:57:51 GMT -5
And liberals didn't believe me President Bush would be re-elected.  |
|
|
|
Post by Challenger on Nov 3, 2004 18:13:19 GMT -5
Didn't like or trust either man to be honest so its not big deal to me. Daft question though how was that comment relivent?  Challenger |
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Nov 4, 2004 15:48:12 GMT -5
When your right about something your right, regardless what others think. I knew Bush was going to get re-elected not because I'm a conservative. It because I know how to read the the voting and non-voting people of this country. So saddam doesn't have WMD's where someone could find them easy. Lets use a example. You have evidence that you commited a murder or two. You were tipped off the police are coming to look at where you live for the evidence. Lets say it takes the police 12 days to get to where your living. Are you going to move the evidence so the police can't find it. Hey there is no evidence so you didn't murder anyone, right. You have a history of murdering people from a few sources. But know one has any direct evidence linking you to the murders, except a bunch of people who said you did. Will others look at you like your innocent and being framed or look at you like you did something wrong?  |
|
|
|
Post by Challenger on Nov 4, 2004 18:06:27 GMT -5
Like it or lump it Galadon by law you are innocent until proven guilty and any court worth the name in either of our countries would throw out any case brought about based on your example due to lake of evidence.
Because your example is writen from the knowledge that the man is guilty it sounds fine to assume guilt without evidence but without that knowledge it would look like a fit up.
Hear say is not proof. If it was we would be back in the days of witch burnings.
Challenger
|
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 4, 2004 22:01:34 GMT -5
NO ONE ever said that Hussein was anything but a murderous, evil tyrant. That's 100% true.
However, that ISN'T the reason that you went to war. Or, at least it wasn't the reason until Bush realized that the UN sanctions had worked and that Hussein had destroyed his WMD's. Oops.
The reason given to the world was that Hussein was an immediete threat to America. Section 51 of the UN Charter does allow for military action in the face of an immediete threat. That's true. BUT, there was no immediete threat. NONE. He didn't have the means to launch WMD's at America, nor did he actually HAVE the WMD's at the time of the invasion. So, the entire justification for the invasion was either completely incompetent or an outright lie. Take your pick.
Sorry Gal, I'm not going to believe news sources which print stories based on how much money they can get for advertising (this goes for both left and right leaning sources) when the US STATE DEPARTMENT says that there were no ties between Al-Quaeda and Hussein.
You OWN government says there were no ties. So, basically, you're saying that a British newspaper has more credibility than your own government? That's pretty sad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Nov 5, 2004 14:40:18 GMT -5
What to talk about next. hmmmmmmmm  |
|
|
|
Post by khyron1144 on Nov 7, 2004 11:25:30 GMT -5
How about my comment on the socialism thread about infrastructure making a civilization okay, while the arts make a civilization great?
|
|
|
|
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Jan 30, 2005 17:15:31 GMT -5
Wow, were to start on that one....  |
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Jan 30, 2005 17:44:22 GMT -5
 Go for it. 
|
|
