• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Osama Bin Laden is dead

it is an answer, which you obviously do not care, the result is what i said is true; not concpiracy nor a lie; however, you just criticise some irrelevant things about me...

So you've read all of these reports?
 
This document does not say that Iraq had nukes. So, it hasn't really helped you establish your point that the CIA said Iraq had nukes.
Do you have anything else to support your assertion that the CIA said Iraq had nukes?
..and also i wanted to know your planet to immigrate there; after all, who would not want to live in a reality free planet...
Wow, you're all about me. Is it easier for you to make comments about me than it is for you to debate?

"...you just criticise some irrelevant things about me..."
 
Nah, what I am is a college kid who thinks. I am a faithful, NPR-listening, card-carrying liberal :D
Sorry, the above does not compute. Perhaps with a little time you will understand why.

Editor's Correction in bold:
Nah, what I am is a college kid who thinks he thinks but doesn't quite understand the world around me yet. Perhaps when I escape college and the Utopian claptrap I'm currently being fed there and by NPR, will I begin to connect-the-dots and change my spots.

.
 
Last edited:
You have quite a bit of reading to do.
You can start with the ISG report. The key findings are only 19 pages long.
When you're finished with that you still need to read UNSCOM and UNMOVIC reports.
Obviously you never bothered to educate yourself on this subject.
To be fair, just because some one doesn't reach the same idiosyncratic conclusions you did, doesn't mean that they did not read the same material.
 
This document does not say that Iraq had nukes. So, it hasn't really helped you establish your point that the CIA said Iraq had nukes.
Do you have anything else to support your assertion that the CIA said Iraq had nukes?
Wow, you're all about me. Is it easier for you to make comments about me than it is for you to debate?

"...you just criticise some irrelevant things about me..."

are you serious?
 
are you serious?
If you can find where that says that Iraq had nukes, I would genuinely appreciate it if you would share the text. I cannot find such text in the document you provided.
 
Sorry, the above does not compute. Perhaps with a little time you will understand why.

.

He seems to be doing very well for someone still in college, and may have some post graduation possibilities.

We should consider his present environment.
 
are you serious?

Soguks, you seem to be confusing weapons of mass destruction with 'nukes'. They are not the same thing. Insisting that they are doesn't help your case.
 
Soguks, you seem to be confusing weapons of mass destruction with 'nukes'. They are not the same thing. Insisting that they are doesn't help your case.

Ok, wht is a "nuke" and how does it differ from a weapon of mass destructon?
 
If you can find where that says that Iraq had nukes, I would genuinely appreciate it if you would share the text. I cannot find such text in the document you provided.

don't be lazy, it is there; if you do not want to face with the truth , then it is your choice, my another proof is the research of Charles Duelfer, he says there were no nukes,biological or chemical weapons in Iraq as alleged, anyway , it seems you do not want to accept the excuse Bush used to intervene into ıraq, it is ok for me; but it is sad to still see some people who have no idea what is going on the ''earth' where i live ....
 
Last edited:
Ok, wht is a "nuke" and how does it differ from a weapon of mass destructon?

All 'nukes' are weapons of mass destruction, but not all weapons of mass destruction are 'nukes'.
 
Soguks, you seem to be confusing weapons of mass destruction with 'nukes'. They are not the same thing. Insisting that they are doesn't help your case.
The gist of soguks "case," such as it is, seems to be the implication that we shouldn't believe that ObL was buried at sea because the CIA said that Iraq had nukes.
Of course I may be wrong. soguks case hasn't been laid out very well. I think we're suppose to infer what his case is from his flippant rhetorical questions. So I may be far off.
 
Dude student to student- travel if you can. I never did and I was always tired coming back to school. Although I either was working/interning/taking classes. Although now after I move out of my apartment this summer my brother and I are taking a week/2 week road trip down the coast.

Travel is perhaps the greatest education, and travel combined with work in foreign environs ist noch besser. Been fortunate to have been a global nomad literally from the womb. Travel is what set my mind straight (and took many years) after spending time at multiple universities. It made me realize how great America is and can be... If we'd only knock off the Eurosocialism und neidgesellschaft.

.
 
Last edited:
Soguks, you seem to be confusing weapons of mass destruction with 'nukes'. They are not the same thing. Insisting that they are doesn't help your case.

...''Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.''

https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm
 
Nah, what I am is a college kid who thinks. I am a faithful, NPR-listening, card-carrying liberal :D There are plenty of folks on here who are solid liberals, who don't end up sounding like Code Pink because they're not crazy or stupid.

Bashing Bush does not a true liberal make.

AHA! NPR is a liberal station!!


Anyways....the same could be said for coservatives...they aren't all Limbaugh and Beck.
 
don't be lazy, it is there;
It is not there at all. The NIE that you linked to does not say that Iraq had nukes.
Here, look for yourself.
https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm

...it seems you do not want to accept the excuse Bush used to intervene into ıraq, it is ok for me; but it is sad to still see some people who have no idea what is going on the ''earth' where i live ....
The Bush Admin didn't say that Iraq had nukes either.

Your guesses about me are way off btw. I suggest you skip talking about me and stick to debating.
 
don't be lazy, it is there; if you do not want to face with the truth , then it is your choice, my another proof is the research of Charles Duelfer, he says there were no nukes,biological or chemical weapons in Iraq as alleged, anyway , it seems you do not want to accept the excuse Bush used to intervene into ıraq, it is ok for me; but it is sad to still see some people who have no idea what is going on the ''earth' where i live ....

That report says quite specifically:
Baghdad could produce a nuclear weapon within a year if it were able to procure weapons-grade fissile material abroad.
In other words, it COULD have 'nukes' within a year IF it got fissile material. It didn't get that material and did not have 'nukes' and that CIA report concedes that. The CIA was wrong about the extent of Iraq's WMD programme, but was right in stating that they didn't have 'nukes'.
 
All 'nukes' are weapons of mass destruction, but not all weapons of mass destruction are 'nukes'.

So, how would calling a nuke a weapon of mass destruction be wrong?
 
Last edited:
That report says quite specifically:

In other words, it COULD have 'nukes' within a year IF it got fissile material. It didn't get that material and did not have 'nukes' and that CIA report concedes that. The CIA was wrong about the extent of Iraq's WMD programme, but was right in stating that they didn't have 'nukes'.

did you check the dates in that report?
 
did you check the dates in that report?

Please be clear. Are you saying that at a later date the CIA said that Iraq DID have 'nukes'? Or are you saying that the invasion took place over one year after that report and hence the CIA can be said to have claimed that Iraq would therefore already have 'nukes' prior to the invasion? You were accusing others as 'lazy', please don't do the same.
 
So, how would calling a nuke a weapon of mass destruction be wrong?
I don't think that anyone said it was incorrect to do so.

But saying that someone has WMD doesn't mean the same thing as saying someone has a nuke. The reason it's not the same is that WMD applies to more things than just a nuke.

For an example, if someone says that they have vegetables, it's not the same as saying that they have carrots.
 
Simon W. Moon , Andalublue

i really cannot understand you, the us army along with England did invade ıraq after those claims there were nukes,biological and chemical weapons, after the invasion they created a research group to prove what they claimed was true; however, the group said the contrary; a war started and ended , but one of you still do not know the reason , and the other one is thinking those claims are the facts not excuses to invade Iraq so we should read the exact words in that report.
 
Back
Top Bottom