Originally posted by Rek2008
Yes, thank you BUSH for lying us into a needless WAR.
So, this is the way it went down:
When the weapons inspectors initially approached Saddam Hussein, they were rejected several times before they were allowed entrance to weapons
facilities. It took how many weeks until Hussein complied? Refresh my memory. It was worldwide intelligence at that time that he DID have WMD's.
It wasn't some American conspiracy. The whole world shared that opinion.
So, why would Saddam Hussein deny the inspector's entrance if he had no WMD's?
Well, Saddam Hussein could have easily shipped his WMD's over the boarders to Syria in 2 week's time, and whatever was remaining could have easily
been buried under the vast Iraqi deserts, and would remain buried for decades. Let's not forget tanks appear every now and again from decades
So, let's assume for a second that we FORCED our way into Saddam's weapons testing facilities from day one and we found a ton of WMD's. Would that
make the war in Iraq warranted?
I'm just curious if you seriously don't understand that 2 weeks time was PLENTY of time for him to relocate or destroy and bury a moderately sized
arsenal of WMD's. Do you SERIOUSLY think he couldn't have done it? He had plenty of time to do so.
The fact is, the world believed he had WMD's. The fact is, he denied weapons inspectors entry to the facilities. Then, after a certain amount of
time, he allowed them entry. Anyone that is proficient with connect-the-dots would immediately draw the conclusion that Hussein denied weapons
inspectors entry until he could dispose of the weapons he was not allowed to have. Once disposal was complete, he allowed them entry.
That is what common sense would tell you. However, popular Bush-bashing rhetoric would have you believe that Bush orchestrated some massive
conspiracy and lied about everything, creating false evidence, covering up the truth and lying to the entire world many times on camera, to lead us
into an endless war for oil (even though we're not getting any more oil from them...hmmm...). He did this all without leaving any tangible evidence
behind, and the only "evidence" against him is a handful of hateful nutcases screaming conspiratorial accusations at him without providing any hard
evidence of anything. Normal people consider this kind of stuff "hearsay" and it's admissible in court...unless it's hearsay against GWB. Since
he's so evil, it has to be true.
Occam's razor is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. The principle states
that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable
predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.
Now, which scenario follows the least amount of wild assumptions? Mine or yours?
But...but...yours is more popular
[edit on 12-8-2008 by ChocoTaco369]