Poll shows Republicans still misinformed

[Dieval]

Funny. You haven't proven shit. Nothing you said deserved a like button. I suppose sharing the same agenda with someone else is reason enough to hit the like button even if nothing they said demonstrated anything substantial.

Becoming a little agitated? Your posts seem to show that.

"Proven" what? That there were chemical weapons in Iraq? Saddam was a threat to the region and the US? That he had violated the terms of his cease fire agreement? That protecting 5 million barrels of oil a day was a good thing? There's nothing I've stated that I need to prove. It's all been identified and explained here before (go back and read old threads if you'd like more info on it)

[truthreality]

Dude, why should someone have to answer something that is already known?

Look at your own post mentioning "chemical weapons" which are weapons of mass destruction. WMDs used by Saadam to kill thousands of his own people. Look at the pictures of dead children who were poisoned like a fucking bug and come back and say "they didn't have WMDs".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

There, I provided you with some substance. If you have the gut's look up more about Sadaam and the horrible shit he did.

My post and the link I provided specifically state that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. Here. Let me spell it out for you.

Country Has Nuclear Weapons? Has Biological Weapons? Has Chemical Weapons?

9. Iraq No - Ended No - Endedh No - Endedh

FactCheck.org

"Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."

"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter."

"In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW [biological warfare] weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes."

"In his congressional testimony, the head of the ISG, Charles Duelfer, admitted, "We were almost all wrong" on Iraq."

"The ISG report was sufficient to convince the Bush administration that there were no WMDs to be found; they called off the search in 2005."

Bush admits there were no weapons of mass destructions in Iraq and that Iraq had no ties with Al Qaida.

The U.S. killed more civilians then Saddam Hussein.

[Senor Hoint]

"Proven" what? That there were chemical weapons in Iraq? Saddam was a threat to the region and the US? That he had violated the terms of his cease fire agreement? That protecting 5 million barrels of oil a day was a good thing? There's nothing I've stated that I need to prove. It's all been identified and explained here before (go back and read old threads if you'd like more info on it)

Prove that Saddam was a threat to either the region, or, even more ludicrous and impossible, the US.

[truthreality]

Becoming a little agitated? Your posts seem to show that.

I am not agitated. I am just stating a fact. You have only expressed your home grown propaganda, I am sorry, opinion.

"Proven" what? That there were chemical weapons in Iraq? Saddam was a threat to the region and the US? That he had violated the terms of his cease fire agreement? That protecting 5 million barrels of oil a day was a good thing? There's nothing I've stated that I need to prove. It's all been identified and explained here before (go back and read old threads if you'd like more info on it)

Again. You are just listing off a bunch of unsubstantiated opinions. Can you provide some citations for your propaganda, again I am sorry, opinion?

[truthreality]

Prove that Saddam was a threat to either the region, or, even more ludicrous and impossible, the US.

This is a fucking joke. I can't believe we still are debating about this. This is crystal clear evidence in favor of the OP.

[Senor Hoint]

This is a fucking joke. I can't believe we still are debating about this. This is crystal clear evidence in favor of the OP.

Well, the OP's premise is obviously correct. You can't expect anything else from a party whose strategy for 40 years has been propagandizing the lower classes to vote against their own interests through a variety of mystifying techniques, including religion and appeals to nationalism and xenophobia. And yes, I agree that there are many posters on this very board who exemplify the point being made in the OP.

[The Decider]

So, a study done by a liberal school, that appears to try and discredit republicans, should be "discouraging" to us? ROFL Yeah, OK.

Would you be so accepting of a study done by a conservative group??

What questions in the study do you find questionable? What about the survey methodology do you consider liberal bias? The study, by the way, was performed by the international marketing agency, YouGov.

[truthreality]

You are mistaken...chemical weapons were found in Iraq. Again, not the large stock piles that were expected, but they were found none the less.

That's odd considering Iraq abandoned their nuclear program in 1991. I provided a link above where Bush admits Iraq had no WMDs.

You'd suggest attacking a country with nuclear weapons? It seems that your judgement is highly questionable.

I am asking you why you wouldn't want to attack Pakistan considering they are a more radical nation with nuclear weapons yet you are ok with the invasion of Iraq? I genuinely, honestly want to know what your opinion is.

As far as the war for oil non-sense, your article says it quite clearly:


Protecting the worlds life-blood from terrorism is different than stealing it, which is usually what people like you suggest.

First you have conceded that the Iraq-War was about oil. Second the article says nothing about protecting the oil from terrorism. The article is talking about control of oil. Had Saddam Hussien gained control of the oil the U.S. could not have it. The article is saying the war was about control of oil.

[Senor Hoint]

You'd suggest attacking a country with nuclear weapons? It seems that your judgement is highly questionable.

Wait, but wasn't Iraq supposed to have had nuclear weapons? You would condone attacking a nuclear-armed Iraq but say that attacking a nuclear-armed Pakistan would be an exhibition of questionable judgement?

[Dieval]

Wait, but wasn't Iraq supposed to have had nuclear weapons? You would condone attacking a nuclear-armed Iraq but say that attacking a nuclear-armed Pakistan would be an exhibition of questionable judgement?

No one ever claimed Iraq had nuclear weapons. Don't be stupid.

[Dieval]

Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.

"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918

Heh....as i've stated over and over again, the large stock piles that we expected to find were not there, but Iraq was definitely NOT free of WMD's.

[Senor Hoint]

No one ever claimed Iraq had nuclear weapons. Don't be stupid.

No one ever claimed Iraq had nuclear weapons? Is this some kind of joke?