owned
Dilbert is so consumed with hate for the US, his glasses steam up every 10 seconds. And everytime marine posts, he eats another newborn american he has stashed in his lair. We had best abide by his word or else
proof of there being wmd's in iraq and obl & aq in afghan or gtfo.usmarine wrote:
King_County_Downy wrote:
This is very true. Pay attention people. ^^Pubic wrote:
I wasn't joking.
Afghanistan was started because the Taleban wouldn't play ball re:OBL & AQ
Iraq was started because Saddam wouldn't play ball re:weapons inspections
If either the Taleban or Saddam had been willing to play ball, the corresponding conflict - and subsequent loss of life for both sides - could have been avoided.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Man With No Name wrote:
dont be thick.
Im sure the Soviet Union had real vital interests in Nicaragua or Angola or Cuba....
russia sucks.
Says who?Man With No Name wrote:
dilbert, your arguments consistently fail.
The whole wmd argument can neither be proved or disproved for simple reasons.Shahter wrote:
proof of there being wmd's in iraq and obl & aq in afghan or gtfo.usmarine wrote:
King_County_Downy wrote:
This is very true. Pay attention people. ^^
The weapons weren't found during the inspections, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. Saddam had access to chemical weapons in the 80's, and like I've said before, he wouldn't have used all of them. He also had a nuclear program before the Israeli Air Force finished that one. He knew the inspections were going to take place, they wouldn't just occur, so that could give him time to remove and then hide whatever weapons he had. The Iraqi desert is a big one, plenty of places to bury stuff never to be found.
Meh even if he didn't he could hardly admit it.M.O.A.B wrote:
The whole wmd argument can neither be proved or disproved for simple reasons.Shahter wrote:
proof of there being wmd's in iraq and obl & aq in afghan or gtfo.usmarine wrote:
The weapons weren't found during the inspections, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. Saddam had access to chemical weapons in the 80's, and like I've said before, he wouldn't have used all of them. He also had a nuclear program before the Israeli Air Force finished that one. He knew the inspections were going to take place, they wouldn't just occur, so that could give him time to remove and then hide whatever weapons he had. The Iraqi desert is a big one, plenty of places to bury stuff never to be found.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
says the actual events in which he speaks. he has his own interpretation of events, clouded by his subjectivity and lack of world knowledge.Lai wrote:
Man With No Name wrote:
dont be thick.
Im sure the Soviet Union had real vital interests in Nicaragua or Angola or Cuba....
russia sucks.Says who?Man With No Name wrote:
dilbert, your arguments consistently fail.
we've a saying in russia just for the occasions like this: "you can't hide a needle in a sack". can't be proven? - than don't try to justify anything with that bullshit. i didn't ask for excuses, i asked for proof, you know the difference, right?M.O.A.B wrote:
The whole wmd argument can neither be proved or disproved for simple reasons.Shahter wrote:
proof of there being wmd's in iraq and obl & aq in afghan or gtfo.
The weapons weren't found during the inspections, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. Saddam had access to chemical weapons in the 80's, and like I've said before, he wouldn't have used all of them. He also had a nuclear program before the Israeli Air Force finished that one. He knew the inspections were going to take place, they wouldn't just occur, so that could give him time to remove and then hide whatever weapons he had. The Iraqi desert is a big one, plenty of places to bury stuff never to be found.
you see, i'd view all those adventures the usa & co undertook lately with much more respect if they dropped the whole "war on therror" non-sence already and finally admitted to be fighting the bloody resource wars ffs. the way it's being presented to the world now is utterly ridiculous.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
So you'd only respect what has been done if it is put in terms that make you comfortable or that fit your preconceptions rather than in terms of actuality?Shahter wrote:
we've a saying in russia just for the occasions like this: "you can't hide a needle in a sack". can't be proven? - than don't try to justify anything with that bullshit. i didn't ask for excuses, i asked for proof, you know the difference, right?M.O.A.B wrote:
The whole wmd argument can neither be proved or disproved for simple reasons.Shahter wrote:
proof of there being wmd's in iraq and obl & aq in afghan or gtfo.
The weapons weren't found during the inspections, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. Saddam had access to chemical weapons in the 80's, and like I've said before, he wouldn't have used all of them. He also had a nuclear program before the Israeli Air Force finished that one. He knew the inspections were going to take place, they wouldn't just occur, so that could give him time to remove and then hide whatever weapons he had. The Iraqi desert is a big one, plenty of places to bury stuff never to be found.
you see, i'd view all those adventures the usa & co undertook lately with much more respect if they dropped the whole "war on therror" non-sence already and finally admitted to be fighting the bloody resource wars ffs. the way it's being presented to the world now is utterly ridiculous.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Fixed. Factiness ftw.Dilbert_X wrote:
It was a political loss after ~10 years of failing to win winning every battle militarily.Vietnam was a political loss. More to do with changing opinions in the USA than the Viet Kong/NVA.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
As one of the few people in Holland or Western Europe in general I have supported and continue to support these so called American adventures. However I never bought any of the WMD or "war on terror" crap. I simply didn't care if there was any truth in it or not. Imo Saddam was a prick to Iraq and the world as were the Taliban: good riddance! Iraq is better of without Saddam and Afghanistan without the Talibs.FEOS wrote:
So you'd only respect what has been done if it is put in terms that make you comfortable or that fit your preconceptions rather than in terms of actuality?Shahter wrote:
we've a saying in russia just for the occasions like this: "you can't hide a needle in a sack". can't be proven? - than don't try to justify anything with that bullshit. i didn't ask for excuses, i asked for proof, you know the difference, right?M.O.A.B wrote:
The whole wmd argument can neither be proved or disproved for simple reasons.
The weapons weren't found during the inspections, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. Saddam had access to chemical weapons in the 80's, and like I've said before, he wouldn't have used all of them. He also had a nuclear program before the Israeli Air Force finished that one. He knew the inspections were going to take place, they wouldn't just occur, so that could give him time to remove and then hide whatever weapons he had. The Iraqi desert is a big one, plenty of places to bury stuff never to be found.
you see, i'd view all those adventures the usa & co undertook lately with much more respect if they dropped the whole "war on therror" non-sence already and finally admitted to be fighting the bloody resource wars ffs. the way it's being presented to the world now is utterly ridiculous.
what constitutes "actuality"? imho, "actuality" or rather out notion about it is based largely on wishfull thinking which nobody can fully overcome and see through.FEOS wrote:
So you'd only respect what has been done if it is put in terms that make you comfortable or that fit your preconceptions rather than in terms of actuality?
you call something "war on terror", i call it "resource wars". you tell me my opinions are based on "preconceptions", i simply call it "common sence". i doubt we'll see eye-to-eye on this one.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
I don't see what resource can be gained from Afghanistan, unless we're hoping to sell off the excess heroin.Shahter wrote:
what constitutes "actuality"? imho, "actuality" or rather out notion about it is based largely on wishfull thinking which nobody can fully overcome and see through.FEOS wrote:
So you'd only respect what has been done if it is put in terms that make you comfortable or that fit your preconceptions rather than in terms of actuality?
you call something "war on terror", i call it "resource wars". you tell me my opinions are based on "preconceptions", i simply call it "common sence". i doubt we'll see eye-to-eye on this one.
The US didn't want to win?Lai wrote:
Failing to win does not mean losing. The US could have won easily if they wanted too.
They won all the battles and lost the war?FEOS wrote:
It was a political loss after ~10 years of winning every battle militarily.
Pretty sure its the war which matters.
If it had been so easy why didn't they just wipe out the NVA?
Pretty hard to bury something which never existed.MOAB wrote:
The Iraqi desert is a big one, plenty of places to bury stuff never to be found.
Fuck Israel
So where did his excess mustard gas go? Evaporate did it? You just take the easy option of saying "we can't see it, so it musn't have existed".Dilbert_X wrote:
The US didn't want to win?Lai wrote:
Failing to win does not mean losing. The US could have won easily if they wanted too.They won all the battles and lost the war?FEOS wrote:
It was a political loss after ~10 years of winning every battle militarily.
Pretty sure its the war which matters.
If it had been so easy why didn't they just wipe out the NVA?Pretty hard to bury something which never existed.MOAB wrote:
The Iraqi desert is a big one, plenty of places to bury stuff never to be found.
Last edited by M.O.A.B (2009-05-20 08:19:49)
IIRC It was determined it was destroyed, just not recorded thoroughly.MOAB wrote:
So where did his excess mustard gas go? Evaporate did it?
If you know better please go find it - Colin Powell would be glad to hear from you.
You want me to believe in something invisible now on your say so?You just take the easy option of saying "we can't see it, so it musn't have existed".
If you have information that Saddam really did have WMD and they are buried in the desert somewhere please tell.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-05-20 08:22:52)
Fuck Israel
So there's a lack of evidence to support it was destroyed? Wow.Dilbert_X wrote:
IIRC It was determined it was destroyed, just not recorded thoroughly.MOAB wrote:
So where did his excess mustard gas go? Evaporate did it?
You could try thinking outside the box perhaps? Apparently everybody has to think no weapons existed just because they weren't found by the inspectors, who happened to have been advertising their upcoming inspection to Saddam.Dilbert_X wrote:
You just take the easy option of saying "we can't see it, so it musn't have existed".
You want me to believe n something invisible now on your say so?
Edit: If you have the information that Saddam didn't bury any weapons in the desert, please tell.
See how the idea cannot be proved or disproved?
Last edited by M.O.A.B (2009-05-20 08:28:56)
Yes, the Iraqis weren't all that bothered about keeping records. Umpteen years on they couldn't prove it.MOAB wrote:
So there's a lack of evidence to support it was destroyed? Wow.
Oh hardly.MOAB wrote:
You could try thinking outside the box perhaps? Apparently everybody has to think no weapons existed just because they weren't found by the inspectors, who happened to have been advertising their upcoming inspection to Saddam.
The inspectors conducted hundreds of inspections before the invasion, based on the latest up to the minute CIA intel.
Iraq was gone over with a fine comb after the invasion.
Until you can provide better information I'm going to stick with my theory No WMD found => There were no WMD.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-05-20 08:35:15)
Fuck Israel
protip MOAB: Pretty sure he had a few modified scud missiles that violated various UN treaties and sanctions we put on him. I think it was USMarine who posted them up on there in 2006.
Somebody also mentioned a small stockpile of mustard gas shells at one point, largely in a state of disrepair.
Somebody also mentioned a small stockpile of mustard gas shells at one point, largely in a state of disrepair.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
I doubt he had the capability for any kind of long range attack, Saddam himself probably wasn't aware he didn't have that (scientists/advisors too frightened to tell), but he definitely had some of the materials.Flecco wrote:
protip MOAB: Pretty sure he had a few modified scud missiles that violated various UN treaties and sanctions we put on him. I think it was USMarine who posted them up on there in 2006.
Somebody also mentioned a small stockpile of mustard gas shells at one point, largely in a state of disrepair.
Saddam had some rusty old shells filled with degraded and useless material buried in forgotten sites.
Hardly an active WMD program.
Hardly an active WMD program.
Fuck Israel
Hold on, I thought he didn't have anything at all buried, or anything of a WMD nature at all?
Besides, I didn't say he had an active program, I said he had the materials, the chemicals which still class as WMD's regardless if they're part of an active program or not. All he would have to do is take the materials from the old shells, load them into the warheads of his SS-1's and they would still release them once used.
I also liked this line from the other thread, kind of the opposite of what you've been saying isn't it.
Besides, I didn't say he had an active program, I said he had the materials, the chemicals which still class as WMD's regardless if they're part of an active program or not. All he would have to do is take the materials from the old shells, load them into the warheads of his SS-1's and they would still release them once used.
I also liked this line from the other thread, kind of the opposite of what you've been saying isn't it.
Dilbert_X wrote:
Its not possible to prove something doesn't exist.
Incorrect, the material was degraded and useless.
Often burying that kind of thing is the simplest way of disposing of it, it degrades quietly without bothering anyone or being easily accessible.
It was Colin Powell and Bush who said Iraq had an active WMD program. A few rusty old shells filled with inactive material doesn't count.
Please prove the WMD program existed when they said it did.
Iraq had a program closed down 10 years prior, no-ones disputing that.
Often burying that kind of thing is the simplest way of disposing of it, it degrades quietly without bothering anyone or being easily accessible.
It was Colin Powell and Bush who said Iraq had an active WMD program. A few rusty old shells filled with inactive material doesn't count.
Please prove the WMD program existed when they said it did.
Iraq had a program closed down 10 years prior, no-ones disputing that.
Fuck Israel
Gonna prove they were useless? I thought he didn't have any.Dilbert_X wrote:
Incorrect, the material was degraded and useless.
Often burying that kind of thing is the simplest way of disposing of it, it degrades quietly without bothering anyone or being easily accessible.
It was Colin Powell and Bush who said Iraq had an active WMD program. A few rusty old shells filled with inactive material doesn't count.
Please prove the WMD program existed when they said it did.
Iraq had a program closed down 10 years prior, no-ones disputing that.
I'm not saying they had an active program. I'm saying they had materials that could still be used in weapons. Mustard Gas products made years ago are still being disposed of in special facilities in other countries today. If it wasn't dangerous after a few years they wouldn't need to be doing that. You also denied they were burying them by telling me to give you proof on the burial sites. If I was talking about an active program they wouldn't be burying the stuff would they? They buried the materials to prevent them being found, probably with the intention that once the inspectors were gone, they would retrieve them.
Part of the reason for the invasion was that Saddam had components of a WMD program, the lethal materials that make the weapon a one of mass destruction are a component.
You have nothing to back your assertion that it is a "resource war". If it were, the war would have started long ago, not when some jihadis decided to fly some jets into three of our buildings.Shahter wrote:
what constitutes "actuality"? imho, "actuality" or rather out notion about it is based largely on wishfull thinking which nobody can fully overcome and see through.FEOS wrote:
So you'd only respect what has been done if it is put in terms that make you comfortable or that fit your preconceptions rather than in terms of actuality?
you call something "war on terror", i call it "resource wars". you tell me my opinions are based on "preconceptions", i simply call it "common sence". i doubt we'll see eye-to-eye on this one.
So...apparently your "common sense" involves making up reasons rather than looking at the actual reasons in order for your view of the world to be validated in your eyes.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular