You need to read your references again. Please do.

"Prewar Movement of WMD Material Out of Iraq, stating "ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place" but also acknowledging that "ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war."

Unlikely but can not rule out the possibility. Pretty close to what I said earlier.

Anyway. I could break down all one thousand pages of the report, but it would do no good. The claim made was this was an illegal war because it was based on lies. I do not see any lies here, bad or late intel (I am going with late) maybe. But not lies.

Even if they had no CB weapons, and we never found anything, it does not mean it was a war based on lies.

Just a few key points here.

"The Iraq Survey Group investigation reported that it had been previously "stored improperly", and thus the gas was "ineffective" as a useful chemical agent."

Much the same thing said in one of your links.

"Residual Pre-1991 CBW Stocks in Iraq, concluding "any remaining chemical munitions in Iraq do not pose a militarily significant threat ... ISG has not found evidence to indicate that Iraq did not destroy its BW weapons or bulk agents"."

Militarily significant threat. This does not mean it was not dangerous. Earlier we showed there there were ties to terror, lets just say they did not exist when we pushed (I think they did, from references given earlier), backing the no lie thing from earlier. But anyway, do you not think that these weapons would be devastating had they been used by terror?

Anyway, we are going around in circles. You say I did not prove one thing, then throw up something that I say did not prove anything.

This is not saying I think you are right, I am just saying that no matter what we will not end up coming to an agreement.

Hell I am pretty sure that I could hand you someone from his government, and when he tells you that they did have and did support, you would come up with something to disprove his statement, saying I tortured him or something.

__________________
Someone hijacked my sig again.

Sure you do care about labels. If it didn't matter whether or not he was a libertarian, you shouldn't even mention it. Just handle the content of the posts she sends you. Besides, libertarianism really doesn't show a strong, unified argument concerning foreign relations because some libertarians think from the perspective of the country doing the invading, and other libertarians think from the perspective of the people terrorized or oppressed. He didn't initiate force with us, but he did initiate force with them, and to just ignore that isn't being libertarian, it is just being isolationist and selfish and not caring about other people.

__________________
My enduring personal, original quote: Many mistake what should rightly be called "passivism" for pacifism. Pacifism and passivism are COMPLETELY different.
----------------------
Ronald Reagan was not the only one to suffer from Alzheimer's Disease. America did, too.

It doesn't matter. Libertarians would not condone the initiation of force onto a country that has not initated force onto us.

Libertarians also don't believe in nation building nor getting involved in genocide (like Darfur). So I don't think they'd want to intervene in the internal affairs of Iraq either.

I already commented that it was a possibility a while back.

The two biggest is that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 and that Saddam posed any threat to the United States of America. Both of which turned out to be bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and were bull(*)(*)(*)(*) to someone paying attention in the beginning. Bush and his cronies prostituted the tragic events of 9/11 to carry out a preconcieved notion for war with Iraq.

This is the first time "war based on lies" has come into play. I haven't mentioned it. But I do think it is a war based on lies. Most wars are to get the drum beat for war going.

What's your point? I provided you that quote a while ago to dismiss the notion that these chemicals found were in any way, shape or form dangerous to anyone.

It was already established that they couldn't have been...

You haven't proven anything though and now you are even using quotes to reinforce my earlier statements. This is very disconcerting.

I'm always cool with agreeing to disagree. But some of this material is facts okay.

I wouldn't believe a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing word from the Bush administration. They haven't given me a reason to.

Libertarians believe that you should get rid of elements that initiate force onto other elements. Just concerning yourself with your own element is not libertarian; it is selfish and apathetic to the plight of others.

__________________
My enduring personal, original quote: Many mistake what should rightly be called "passivism" for pacifism. Pacifism and passivism are COMPLETELY different.
----------------------
Ronald Reagan was not the only one to suffer from Alzheimer's Disease. America did, too.

You need to read back up on Libertarian philosophy. Libertarians do not believe in coercing people to do something. In other words, forcing me into charity would be one of those (or governmental foreign aid). And if Saddam did not iniate force onto us, it does not matter what he has done to his own citizens.

Most libertarians also believe genocide needs to correct itself. Sending in outside troops will only esclate the problem.

While there may have been some vague speak of him being tied to 911, I believe they simply said that he was supporting terrorists.

And I provided several that said they were, I do believe that those quotes, and my own professional knowledge trumps it.

Brother, there is a difference between militarily significant and harmless. Do you even know how blister agents and their vessicant brothers work, or why they stick around for so long?

Oh come on now bright box, I was talking about someone from Saddam's gov.

Anyway, give it a few years, they are about half way through the two million and some documents we brought back, I would say that you will be able to see all of them by 2012.

__________________
Someone hijacked my sig again.

We are not coercing anyone. All the soldiers are voluntary, and all the Iraqis have wanted Saddam gone for a while but just couldn't for lack of power and spirit. Saddam was antagonizing his own people, and that is an initiation of force. Libertarians believe that people who initiate force shouldbe dealt with.

__________________
My enduring personal, original quote: Many mistake what should rightly be called "passivism" for pacifism. Pacifism and passivism are COMPLETELY different.
----------------------
Ronald Reagan was not the only one to suffer from Alzheimer's Disease. America did, too.

[quote=C-D-P;467340]While there may have been some vague speak of him being tied to 911, I believe they simply said that he was supporting terrorists.



I provided a quote from the military personnel on the site. Unless you were also there offering a different opinion, your personal knowledge does not trump those actually there.

All I need to know is that military personnel and other agents on the field said it was not dangerous and posed no threat to anyone.

Yea and I had quotes from Saddams government that stated that there were no WMD's.

It'll be interesting.

I'd also like to see an indepth investigation from a third party on the Bush Administration and so forth.

I'm not talking about the soldiers. I'm talking about iniating force on a country that didn't iniate force on us (the coercion I was referencing was with regards to taxes).

Not if they didn't iniate force on us. And we weren't/aren't being greeted as liberators as it is.