Oh I see so you can say because you can't find weapons (after proven that they existed) that they don't exist. Yet you can't show us where they were destroyed. Now we can't say WMD exist (after proven that they existed) because we can't find where they're hidden - either in full or in parts after beind dismantled.
You can't argue. You can't read. You can't think.
They did not teach your poor ass in the Canadadian army about those 3 things me thinks.
-Rudey
Quote:
Originally posted by RACooper
Gotta love it... Rudey your slipping, this doesn't meet the outrageous standards of your previous personal attacks or insults....
Right, I'll try to explain this to you using simple language... Yes the UN said that weapons did exist and mandated Sadam to destroy or dismantle the WMD and development programs following the first Gulf War... and many inspectors where involved in ensuring this happened. Sadam and the inspectors played cat and mouse through-out the 90s...
Now the Sadam regime tried to keep as many secrets as possible from the UN inspectors (because of understandable worries that the inspectors had foreign intelligence agents in their ranks), but he repeatedly claimed that he had elimnated the weapons and dismantled the programs... and UN inspectors couldn't counter this as no evidence of WMD were found, and scant evidence of their destruction was found... now here is where you argue that if evidence of their existance or destruction can't be found they must still be out there... where as I take the view that if evidence of their existance or destruction can't be found perhaps Sadam was truthful about their destruction, because after all now evidence countering this has been found either.
|
Threaded Mode