Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

Matrosov

(1,098 posts)
2. Because if you keep arguing
Tue Aug 2, 2016, 03:21 PM
Aug 2016

Then they can come back with 'Oh, you callin me a liar?!' rather than actually having to offer any evidence. It's lazy on their part.

TexasProgresive

(12,159 posts)
3. "some are saying" doesn't make it true.
Tue Aug 2, 2016, 03:25 PM
Aug 2016

It's trying to strengthen an argument with unsubstantiated proof. They should have to name them and invite them into the conversation to make their case. Chases are they are the cousin of someone brother-in-law in another state that knows someone who was in the same town as the person who made the claim.

So ask them who these people are and if they would be willing to convince you that they are eye witnesses to seeing WMDs in Iraq that weren't already tagged by the inspection teams. (You have to cover all bases with these people. Yeah there were chemical weapons in Iraq but they were tagged and secured until Dumya and company destroyed the country.

renie408

(9,854 posts)
4. Exactly. How does "Because I said so" work for anybody other than a five year old child?
Tue Aug 2, 2016, 03:31 PM
Aug 2016

And it never worked that great for mine!

She says I just have to take her word for it. I said, well, since I don't actually know you, that's kinda tough. Do you have any proof at all??

No, her SECURITY CLEARANCE wouldn't allow it.

I called bullshit and she stuck her nose in the air and left the discussion.

 

linuxman

(2,337 posts)
5. WMDs (nerve agent shells, etc) were absolutely found.
Tue Aug 2, 2016, 04:04 PM
Aug 2016

What wasn't found was signs of ongoing production and development.

renie408

(9,854 posts)
6. Yes, but my understanding was that these were older stockpiles
Tue Aug 2, 2016, 04:08 PM
Aug 2016

and embarrassing to the West because they were weapons we already knew were there AND we helped create them.

 

linuxman

(2,337 posts)
9. Yes, that is right.
Tue Aug 2, 2016, 06:08 PM
Aug 2016

We knew about them. Those aren't what we were looking for, though. That's probably what the argument OP was talking about stemmed form.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
8. Sure, they found some-- rusted, corroded and degraded
Tue Aug 2, 2016, 05:00 PM
Aug 2016

The argument for the war was "an ongoing programs of WMD's and that there was a large, secret stockpile of chemical weapons. Sure, they found some-- rusted, corroded and degraded, left-overs from the Iran-Iraq war.

Hans Blix however, stated that Iraq had made demonstrable reductions, and disarmament was proceeding as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I just had a mini argumen...