Its already known I suck at spelling.  Mixture of spellcheck and me being actually bad at it.  But if that is your crux of your argument that's kinda sad... I mean there are far worse offenders out there like london808 yet I mainly catch flack.  Believe what you want to believe if someone says something you don't agree doesn't mean they are wrong.  Also I find many people here get their info from some conspiracy sites or crazy radio hosts.  I personally watch none and listen to none.  Glen beck, infowars and other similar sites are dumb. So is the other side of the spectrum like salon etc.  For my facts I like to get multiple sources saying the same thing with sources.  That means more than one or a few people saying one thing.    Like I said before I do not really take enough time to do thorough enough arguments here.  I guess thats my bad but I don't have the time to research and write term papers for every single argument.  I try with what time and effort I give and voice my opinion here.

But you have no evidence they are lying about ICBMs of which you have no independent proof.

The only way Americans found out about the lies regarding the Gulf of Tonkin incident was when the government, itself, declassified documents for public viewing years after the Vietnam War.  Under your standards, there was no way Americans at that time to know the truth, unless they actually was in the Gulf of Tonkin.  Regardless, the US Government lied to the American people to escalate the Vietnam War.

Likewise, with the Iraq War in 2003, there were many skeptical Americans who did not think they had WMDs.  But there was no way to prove that position without going to Iraq and looking for them themselves.  In the end, those who took the position that there were no WMDs were vindicated by the fact none were found.

The point being made from these two incidents is that just because independent proof was absent at the time these events were transpiring, did not make those who believed the US Government was lying in both cases, not justified in the views that they held at that time.


That's not rational.

In reality, you above all else should know many decisions made by people as well as governments are not always rational, and yet sometimes, turn out to be the correct decision.


Kuleana

Difficult to quote the way your respond.

Official government documentation of non-existence?

Even if it were provided, you wouldn't believe it over the "evidence" you provided previously.

I said I would not necessarily take anything the government says at face value.  I did not say I don't believe in anything the government says.

Very different.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why do you go to great lengths to mock me?

Why do you go to great lengths to mock me?

Hey Kuleana,

If Iraq didn't have chemical weapons how was Sadam able to use chemical weapons in the Iran war and on his own Kurdish people just a few years before the first Iraq war? And I believe he used them after the first Iraq war around 91 or 92. This is verified proof he had them. That is not up for debate. So please answer the question, what is the lie about Iraq and chemical weapons leading up to the second Iraq war that you are referring to in your posts? Thanks.

lol
it's the first one
i'm done

Your evidence if reflective of the years prior to the turn of the century.  The question I raise is, "did he have them in the immediate years prior to the invasion of 2003?" and if he did, "why did he not use them against the Americans when they invaded?"  Furthermore, after Iraq was occupied by the US, "why were none to be found and officially showcased to the World to justify the invasion?"

Actually, the NYT printed an article claiming that the government hid the fact that the U.S. troops did find chemical weapons stores between 2004 and 2011.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/100000003173431.mobile.html?_r=1

This might answer some of your questions.

It always amazes me how the "Bush lied" myth gets so much acceptance and airtime on every medium, but the truth printed by the New York Times only sees the light of day on a one-by-one basis as those still pushing that myth are enlightened.

The narrative is always being controlled by the Left, regardless of how the Left likes to accuse the Right of being the liars.

For me, just the fact that Iraq had and used chemical weapons on their own people just 10 years prior was enough for me to believe they had them. Even so, I did not support the decision to invade Iraq due to not having a plan on what to do after the war. Also, the fact that it was reported during the build up to the war that chemical weapons were shipped off to Syria and a few years later Syria is using chemical weapons on their own people seems like a huge coincidence to me. But what do I know?

It always amazes me how the "Bush lied" myth gets so much acceptance and airtime on every medium, but the truth printed by the New York Times only sees the light of day on a one-by-one basis as those still pushing that myth are enlightened.

The narrative is always being controlled by the Left, regardless of how the Left likes to accuse the Right of being the liars.

Though I recognize your position and concede to its possibility, it still does not address the question as to why did Saddam did not utilize his WMDs against the Americans during the invasion?

Though I recognize your position and concede to its possibility, it still does not address the question as to why did Saddam did not utilize his WMDs against the Americans during the invasion?

Though I recognize your position and concede to its possibility, it still does not address the question as to why did Saddam did not utilize his WMDs against the Americans during the invasion?