Aloysius Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 ppl say bush lied to take us to war. i disagree. there was an artical in the Washington Post.. i'm too lazy to remember when it was... but from the intelligence we have we know for certain that Saddam Hussein AT LEAST believed that he had weopons of mass destruction. his scientists were afraid to report failure. HIS SCIENTISTS lied to him about the success of weapons programs... these weapons existed on paper, the threat existed on paper, Bush made the prudent decision based on the apparent threat -_- what do you think about this theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IXpenguin21 Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 the movment into iraq was because sadam did not let us inspect him, giving us reason to believe that he was hiding something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inDEED Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 This is screamin' debate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted January 27, 2004 Author Share Posted January 27, 2004 i decided against my better judgement to post it... i just wanted to see what ppl think of the theory that the weapons existed on paper and it wasn't bush who lied, it was the iraqi scientists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IXpenguin21 Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 theories, speculation, cotroversy... that's what life's like on the planet earth!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted January 27, 2004 Author Share Posted January 27, 2004 :lol: apparently there's documents found in Iraq to proove they thought they had the weapons, and scientist testimony that they lied to save their own butts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.SIGGA Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 No offense but this topic has been slaughtered already; check the Back Alley. I am the loyal opposition but I don't have the strength to get into this discussion again. For the record, anything Blaze or Don Jon will say on this post I will prob disagree with, providing accurate points of view they won't care to mention :D That's my argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted January 27, 2004 Author Share Posted January 27, 2004 :huh: does the one in the back alley touch on the scientists lying to saddam about success of weapon program theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.SIGGA Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 ok I'm not getting into this debate, but Bush had crappy unreliable intelligence (from the British, vengeful Iraqi exiles, and the CIA) mixed with actual records that Sadaam actually had weapons in the late 80s and early 90s he bought from America. So that is also a "possible" and important senario that isn't one of your poll picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 I can't pick either. I don't think Bush or the scientists lied. I think there are weapons, we just haven't found MANY yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedroX Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 wasn't this an episode of the X-files? peace... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicAndFanatical Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 I for one supported the war at first. I was all gung-ho about it. But now, its like another vietnam, we shouldnt be there. Were loosing more soldiers now than we did when the war was happening. NOW come to find out there was really never any WMD's there. But what really, really, really, really, really really really really angers me... WHAT HAPPEN TO OSAMA BIN LADEN?? You know, the guy who was repsonsible for taking down the towers? The guy who started this War on Terror in the first place... It didnt make a bit of since to me that after the Terror Attack on us, and finding out it was Osama's fault..that we would go attack Sadam instead. After seeing that take place it made more sense that Bush used this as an excuse to get rid of Sadam, for personal reasons. Yes he was a threat not only to his own people, but to the world..BUT, Osama Bin Laden is far more dangerous than Sadam could hope for. Ok, thats my dolla fity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Huether Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 I for one supported the war at first. I was all gung-ho about it. But now, its like another vietnam, we shouldnt be there. Were loosing more soldiers now than we did when the war was happening. NOW come to find out there was really never any WMD's there. But what really, really, really, really, really really really really angers me... WHAT HAPPEN TO OSAMA BIN LADEN?? You know, the guy who was repsonsible for taking down the towers? The guy who started this War on Terror in the first place... It didnt make a bit of since to me that after the Terror Attack on us, and finding out it was Osama's fault..that we would go attack Sadam instead. After seeing that take place it made more sense that Bush used this as an excuse to get rid of Sadam, for personal reasons. Yes he was a threat not only to his own people, but to the world..BUT, Osama Bin Laden is far more dangerous than Sadam could hope for. Ok, thats my dolla fity I'm almost completely in agreement. I don't think Bush is in it for "personal reasons", otherwise I don't think he would have gone to the Pope for his opinion. Other than that, yeah, what the heck happened to Osama. Are we that short memoried (?? is that a word??). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted January 27, 2004 Author Share Posted January 27, 2004 no one forgot about Osama. if we had not gone to war in Iraq do you really believe we would've found him by now? me neither... i think the weapons existed on paper, the scientists were gettin a lot of money for tellin him they had produced WMD's... i believe it was the prudent decision given the paper evidence of WMD's... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.SIGGA Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 I'm almost completely in agreement. I don't think Bush is in it for "personal reasons", otherwise I don't think he would have gone to the Pope for his opinion. Other than that, yeah, what the heck happened to Osama. Are we that short memoried (?? is that a word??). for western political leaders, going to the pope for an opinion is a political gesture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now