This explains a lot ...
http://www.thevoiceofreason.com/2003...qisAteWMDs.htm
Printable View
This explains a lot ...
http://www.thevoiceofreason.com/2003...qisAteWMDs.htm
lol :D
That report contains about the same factual content as your average BBC or New York Times story. Would make both of those "news" agencies proud :D
X
Well I think we can let the BBC off there as they've set their sights one something higher now...
http://www.thebrainstrust.co.uk/article.63.2849.html
Which is still way better than the coalition propaganda. I hate to say this, but that link would perhaps be the only explanation left for Dubya and Co, and I don't think he would be ashamed to present it to the world.Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
That report contains about the same factual content as your average BBC or New York Times story. Would make both of those "news" agencies proud :D
X
.
I know you wouldn’t because you have this little problem with presenting anything that contains any facts. I normally don’t address your posts anymore because as I see it you can't fathom the big picture and tend to just have a narrow minded Anti-American view on things.Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
Which is still way better than the coalition propaganda. I hate to say this, but that link would perhaps be the only explanation left for Dubya and Co, and I don't think he would be ashamed to present it to the world.
.
X
You seem to be the complete opposite. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
I know you wouldn’t because you have this little problem with presenting anything that contains any facts. I normally don’t address your posts anymore because as I see it you can't fathom the big picture and tend to just have a narrow minded Anti-American view on things.
X
Fine, whether you choose to reply to my posts or not doesn't make any difference. From the media reports I can make an assessment of the things going on. Certainly I don't expect BBC to lie to me if any WMDs were really found. And so I don't expect it to lie to me either if there are no WMDs. I see the fact that the US and the UK governments put a lot of stress on the existence of WMDs in Iraq and what an immediate threat they were to the US. I see the fact that so many months after the 'war' has been declared over by Bush (another stupid thing, as the continued attacks are proving, but it's Bush so ... :rolleyes: ) no WMDs have been found. Nothing so far has been found that could indicate Iraq had WMDs which posed an immediate danger to the US. I also see the fact that both the US and UK governments have suddenly started pointing to Saddam as an evil ruler and claiming that it's not important that WMDs are found (btw, I also saw the fact that Tony Blair, and maybe Rumsfeld, claim right after the 'war' was over that the WMDs will be found. Something about the clearest evidence for the world to see ....)Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
I know you wouldn’t because you have this little problem with presenting anything that contains any facts. I normally don’t address your posts anymore because as I see it you can't fathom the big picture and tend to just have a narrow minded Anti-American view on things.
X
I draw my conclusions from these well-known and public facts, not out of some stupid superiority complexes or paranoid rulers' propagandas.
.
Liberal :pQuote:
Originally posted by WiKiDJeFF
You seem to be the complete opposite. :rolleyes:
X
Would you accept Iraqi documentation that proves there were ongoing WMD programs up until the latest war?Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
Fine, whether you choose to reply to my posts or not doesn't make any difference. From the media reports I can make an assessment of the things going on. Certainly I don't expect BBC to lie to me if any WMDs were really found. And so I don't expect it to lie to me either if there are no WMDs. I see the fact that the US and the UK governments put a lot of stress on the existence of WMDs in Iraq and what an immediate threat they were to the US. I see the fact that so many months after the 'war' has been declared over by Bush (another stupid thing, as the continued attacks are proving, but it's Bush so ... :rolleyes: ) no WMDs have been found. Nothing so far has been found that could indicate Iraq had WMDs which posed an immediate danger to the US. I also see the fact that both the US and UK governments have suddenly started pointing to Saddam as an evil ruler and claiming that it's not important that WMDs are found (btw, I also saw the fact that Tony Blair, and maybe Rumsfeld, claim right after the 'war' was over that the WMDs will be found. Something about the clearest evidence for the world to see ....)
I draw my conclusions from these well-known and public facts, not out of some stupid superiority complexes or paranoid rulers' propagandas.
.
X
I would, please post your links.Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
Would you accept Iraqi documentation that proves there were ongoing WMD programs up until the latest war?
X
Nah, that would breach the security of their contacts :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by WiKiDJeFF
I would, please post your links.
I would accept it, Xanith, provided:
1. The documents are verified and certified by a third-party, preferably the UN weapons inspectors to be true and original
2. The documents are verified and certified by a third-party, preferably the UN weapons inspectors and other nuclear scientists outside the US and the UK, to be containing materials that establishes beyond doubt that Iraq was continuing with the WMD programme.
Unfortunately, your government can never fulfil any of these conditions. Maybe the documents they are using to make these claims are fakes. Maybe they are academic papers that simply describe the process of making a nuclear weapon.
After all whatever evidence the US did give the UN inspectors has turned out to be completely false and forged.
.
Ok so in other words you wouldnt believe anything. Just wondering.Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
Nah, that would breach the security of their contacts :rolleyes:
I would accept it, Xanith, provided:
1. The documents are verified and certified by a third-party, preferably the UN weapons inspectors to be true and original
2. The documents are verified and certified by a third-party, preferably the UN weapons inspectors and other nuclear scientists outside the US and the UK, to be containing materials that establishes beyond doubt that Iraq was continuing with the WMD programme.
Unfortunately, your government can never fulfil any of these conditions. Maybe the documents they are using to make these claims are fakes. Maybe they are academic papers that simply describe the process of making a nuclear weapon.
After all whatever evidence the US did give the UN inspectors has turned out to be completely false and forged.
.
X
err ...
it was a joke.
Just thought I'd mention it in case it got forgotten along the way. :)
Now how could that possibly happen. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
err ...
it was a joke.
Just thought I'd mention it in case it got forgotten along the way. :)