Is it true? Could it be?!!! ISIS finds WMD in Iraq

[red state]

Has anyone heard this?

ISIS finds the Iraq wmd that liberals claimed did not exist. Someone owes an apology. Maybe?

[Kathianne]

I always thought they or their precursors existed, but nonetheless, you've a link to ISIS finding?

[red state]

I never was a Bush fan but I just had to do this................
He told you so!!! HA!!!

BUSH EXONERATED: ISIS UNCOVERS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQPosted by Staff on August 10, 2014

BAGHDAD — President Obama is currently meeting privately with his cabinet to discuss the news from Iraq that ISIS has discovered scores of Weapons of Mass Destruction that Saddam Hussein had hidden before the start of the US Invasion in 2003. The UN security council is scheduled to meet for an emergency session.

READ MORE: http://www.politicalears.com/blog/bush-exonerated-isis-uncovers-weapons-of-mass-destruction-in-iraq/

[NightTrain]

I never understood the whole liberal argument that there weren't any Chemical Weapons in Saddam's arsenal - it was well documented that he'd already possessed and used them before.

Of course he had them.

[DLT]

Has anyone heard this?

ISIS finds the Iraq wmd that liberals claimed did not exist. Someone owes an apology. Maybe?

Nah. Everybody knows that most of the "good stuff" was trucked and flown to Syria.

[red state]

Well, I know many of them (here and elsewhere) and after years of spewing $#!T out of their mouths, they will simply shrug this off and make a dumb@$$ comment and HOPE it goes away.

[Kathianne]

I tread back to the source, total nonsense. Red State, while you may be 'conservative' your conspiracy streak is more than questionable.

It's crap like this that gives 'conservatives' a bad name. Justifiably.

[aboutime]

I never understood the whole liberal argument that there weren't any Chemical Weapons in Saddam's arsenal - it was well documented that he'd already possessed and used them before.

Of course he had them.


NT. We must first remember. Any of the supposed WMD claims made by Powell, and Bush could never be admitted...by Liberal Democrats as TRUE. Such news would just make their lies LOOK BAD.

It doesn't matter who said Saddam Didn't have WMD's. The Dems will never ADMIT they were lying for any reason.

The best example of that is...OBAMA.

[NightTrain]

The only stories I found were from June 2014... I'm surprised I didn't hear about this before now.

It looks like the Telegraph over in Britain was the only major news outlet to report on the story.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10913275/Isis-storms-Saddam-era-chemical-weapons-complex-in-Iraq.html

[aboutime]

The only stories I found were from June 2014... I'm surprised I didn't hear about this before now.

It looks like the Telegraph over in Britain was the only major news outlet to report on the story.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10913275/Isis-storms-Saddam-era-chemical-weapons-complex-in-Iraq.html


NightTrain. Truth is. The British news sources are much more, up to date with their reporting.

Our MSM only prints what they believe...won't hurt Obama, and the Democrats who lie to Black Americans to convince them the FREE STUFF is all they need to worry about.

[Kathianne]

Those that followed the think tanks and the blogs, knew that many things led to there being WMD's in Iraq, hell the Iraq-Iran War made that clear. Also clear was that those weapons degrade, pretty rapidly, that was the point from the left.

What was left out of the narrative was that the lab and weapons were moved to Syria and beyond. Wouldn't doubt that those weapons weren't in the hands of or moving their way towards Hamas or ISIS.
\\

[DLT]

NT. We must first remember. Any of the supposed WMD claims made by Powell, and Bush could never be admitted...by Liberal Democrats as TRUE. Such news would just make their lies LOOK BAD.

It doesn't matter who said Saddam Didn't have WMD's. The Dems will never ADMIT they were lying for any reason.

The best example of that is...OBAMA.

It doesn't help the left's cause (re: no WMDs, all lies) that half of the Democrats went on record pontificating about Saddam's threat to the entire world and especially to the USA because of Saddam's WMDs program. Even Clinton stated he was for a regime change in Iraq. Darn that internet! Can't hide anything. The fact that the Democrat stance suddenly changed as soon as a Republican was in the WH is just typical leftist hypocrisy, partisan hackery and double standards ....since suddenly Bush had to 'prove' the same allegations that they'd been making all along.

Iraq was a good idea at the time....a pocket of resistance of democracy smack dab in the middle of the Middle East. It could have been an ongoing success, with a willing America. But we should have known that the left would get their guy in there and destroy any and all gains made there...simply because it was a Republican that made those gains. And now we witness the massacres, genocide and rise of radical Islam in every ME nation. Thanks, Barry!

[aboutime]

Those that followed the think tanks and the blogs, knew that many things led to there being WMD's in Iraq, hell the Iraq-Iran War made that clear. Also clear was that those weapons degrade, pretty rapidly, that was the point from the left.

What was left out of the narrative was that the lab and weapons were moved to Syria and beyond. Wouldn't doubt that those weapons weren't in the hands of or moving their way towards Hamas or ISIS.
\\


Kathianne. Agreed about the DEGRADATION factor. But, I wonder which American with boots on the ground in Iraq wanted to be the FIRST to test how much those Chemical Weapons had DEGRADED?

There were also many, many Democrats in Congress at the time who had access to the INTEL about Saddam's WMD's. But, as we all know. In hindsight now. Those denials were primarily based on the SUPER HATRED of Bush by the left, and Democrats who would never admit...THEY LIED.

[Drummond]

The Leftie argument that WMD's didn't exist in Iraq was always complete nonsense. It all amounted to, 'Saddam says he doesn't have any. He won't prove it. But since he says so, it must be true'.

Full marks to the Telegraph (.. and this one got past me completely .. I'm spending too much time with the BBC, which OF COURSE didn't broadcast any of this).

The Left will deny, ridicule, stick their ostrich heads in the sand. But theirs is the insanity.

Meanwhile, the real world is stuck with grimmer realities ...

[Drummond]

Kathianne. Agreed about the DEGRADATION factor. But, I wonder which American with boots on the ground in Iraq wanted to be the FIRST to test how much those Chemical Weapons had DEGRADED?

There were also many, many Democrats in Congress at the time who had access to the INTEL about Saddam's WMD's. But, as we all know. In hindsight now. Those denials were primarily based on the SUPER HATRED of Bush by the left, and Democrats who would never admit...THEY LIED.:clap::clap::clap::clap:

... which I've been saying myself, for years. Your Rick Santorum produced a declassified portion of a US Intelligence document that had been newly-declassified, this back in 2006. The press promptly did their best to bury it ... with variable success in the US, and with TOTAL success here on this side of the Pond. Total silence about this in the UK media, and across Europe.

I only knew of it, courtesy of the Internet and Fox News ...

[red state]

Again, I know that there are many (here and elsewhere) who, after years of spewing $#!T out of their mouths, will simply shrug this off and make a dumb@$$ comment and HOPE it goes away.........that is (IF) it is true. I found several links on the subject but passed this one along because it was actually sent to me. In today's news world (or lack thereof) I simply wanted to bring this to everyone's attention and get responses on the subject. I am not a reporter or one for conspiracies but I certainly seem to be a good fisherman. HA!!!

Like many of you, I knew that the WMD was there cuz they'd been used before Bush Senior was president (I think) and it was without any doubt that the guy had them, had them hid or had sold them before BUSH jr came a knocking. It is, however, a funny thing and somewhat of a mystery how the attacks still fly when dealing with the left who make silly, leftist statements to debunk the WMD intel or sugar coat it.

[jimnyc]

I've said fall along that these chemicals were an issue, and how some of the weapons stored can still be lethal. Much of it was preserved in a manner so that it would remain until weaponized, giving it a much longer shelf life. And then HUNDREDS OF TONS. Let that amount of chemicals sink in - even one ton is more than enough, but we're talking a massive amount. And even of potency is less, it can still be used to kill on a mass scale.

I didn't care much for the first link, seemed a little sketchy. But the one from the Brits makes perfect sense. I've showed many times that hundreds of tons of chemical weapons were accounted for and tagged by inspectors in 1998. Upon return in 2001 they were missing. Demands were made over and over to the Iraqi government and they failed up till the very end to account for them. And now if the report is true from the British, a similar amount of chemical weapons have perhaps fallen into terrorist hands. One can only hope they are too stupid to know how to do anything to weaponize them. But as the article states, they can still do some nasty things on a low level.

[jimnyc]

Iraq initially told UNSCOM that 3,080 tons of mustard gas had been produced, but in 1995 Iraq reduced this amount to 2,850 tons. UNSCOM found Iraq's mustard gas to be at least 80% pure and determined that it could be stored for long periods of time, both in bulk and in weaponized form. In its distilled form, mustard gas has a long life, and can be stockpiled for decades. It is relatively easy to produce and load into munitions. Iraq admits filling some 550 artillery shells with mustard gas but says it misplaced them shortly after the first Gulf War.

About the Sarin:


Iraq adopted the "binary" method of weaponization, in which the components of sarin gas are stored separately until use, when they are mixed. The components of sarin are DF 2 and the alcohols cyclohexanol and isoproponal. Iraq manufactured DF 2 with a purity of 95%, and imported alcohols of 100% purity, so the detonation of its munitions could be expected to yield relatively pure sarin.
At first, Iraq told UNSCOM that it had produced an estimated 250 tons of tabun and 812 tons of sarin. In 1995, Iraq changed its estimates and reported it had produced only 210 tons of tabun and 790 tons of sarin. Thus, it is still uncertain how much tabun and sarin Iraq actually manufactured.

So basically, when the chemicals are weaponized in binary form they don't suffer from shelf life.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/profiles/chemical.html

[Kathianne]

Those that say they don't 'need' any back up, are those whom honest folks should fear. Seriously. I'm on board for there likely, more than likely to have been chemical and even biological in Iraq. The real problem is in tracing them to where they are now, though likely not worth much at this point. They would have degraded to be less than lethal. The actual issue is in following where they were and are now, so that there can be repercussions.

Whether or not that would happen? I wouldn't trust this administration.

[aboutime]

Those that say they don't 'need' any back up, are those whom honest folks should fear. Seriously. I'm on board for there likely, more than likely to have been chemical and even biological in Iraq. The real problem is in tracing them to where they are now, though likely not worth much at this point. They would have degraded to be less than lethal. The actual issue is in following where they were and are now, so that there can be repercussions.

Whether or not that would happen? I wouldn't trust this administration.


Kathianne. I understand your reasoning, but, How do you explain Assad's use of Chemical Weapons to kill his own people?

Remember the PHONY 'red line' Obama announced that Assad SHOULDN'T CROSS, but did?

Reports were. Assad was using WMD's brought into Syria from Iraq, when Saddam was trying to hide them.

I didn't make all of that up. It has been documented, and verified.

[Kathianne]

Kathianne. I understand your reasoning, but, How do you explain Assad's use of Chemical Weapons to kill his own people?

Remember the PHONY 'red line' Obama announced that Assad SHOULDN'T CROSS, but did?

Reports were. Assad was using WMD's brought into Syria from Iraq, when Saddam was trying to hide them.

I didn't make all of that up. It has been documented, and verified.

Uh huh. May be from Iraq, more likely from their proxy leader, aka Russia.

[Redrose]

Nothing would surprise me with ISIS. I believe they're here in the US. If they did find WMD's we're in big trouble.

[Sir Evil]

Take WMD's out of the equation and there was still plenty on the table to support the ouster of Sadaam, it was long overdue!

[jimnyc]

Take WMD's out of the equation and there was still plenty on the table to support the ouster of Sadaam, it was long overdue!

Yep, far too many forget, or are naive about the 12 years of failed negotiations and resolutions, and many don't even know what was in the resolutions.

[Noir]

Which raises the question - If these disused chemical plants where in operation when Iraq was invaded, why didn't the Americans / British etc report from them at the time and say 'look, here are those WMDs!' ?

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

So, you're claiming ISIS found in just a few months what the US military couldn't find in 10 years? Is that really the argument you want to make?

[jimnyc]

Which raises the question - If these disused chemical plants where in operation when Iraq was invaded, why didn't the Americans / British etc report from them at the time and say 'look, here are those WMDs!' ?

This was done in 1998, the chemicals disappeared as of 2001 and were never seen prior to or after invasion.

[jimnyc]

So, you're claiming ISIS found in just a few months what the US military couldn't find in 10 years? Is that really the argument you want to make?

Can you or ANYONE claim to know where the hundreds of tons of chemicals went after 1998? Are you implying the reports from 1998, and subsequent investigations by the UN were all false? Is that REALLY the argument you want to make, that the entire world lied?

[Sir Evil]

Yep, far too many forget, or are naive about the 12 years of failed negotiations and resolutions, and many don't even know what was in the resolutions.

Why is this still even being discussed? I remember the very same topic how many years ago now? Who cares and what will it ultimately prove now? That one side was right and the other is wrong? Sadaam is dead, one less major asshole in the world...

[jimnyc]

Why is this still even being discussed? I remember the very same topic how many years ago now? Who cares and what will it ultimately prove now? That one side was right and the other is wrong? Sadaam is dead, one less major asshole in the world...

Because it takes the heat off of the current president and doesn't expose his endless failures? :dunno:

[namvet]

Iraq is a big country. hiding WMD's underground for me was always a given. the libtards insisted on actually seeing a nuke sitting on a launch pad. Hussein was not that stupid

[Drummond]

Noir, Lemongrass ... I see you're doing the Leftie propagandist thing of denying the existence of WMD's in Iraq, circa (and beyond) 2003 ??

It's a nice little fiction that the Left has perpetrated on the world, for an astonishingly long time.

The TRUTH, folks, is that an American Senator by the name of Rick Santorum held a press conference in June 2006, during which he disclosed to the attending reporters a couple of pages of a newly-declassified document originating from US Intelligence. In it, the report made clear that in excess of 500 old WMD's had been located in Iraq.

I have posted on this a number of times before, both here and on other forums ... and I consider this a prime example of where the Left has succeeded in promoting its preferred propaganda, and in so doing, has successfully managed to substitute THAT for the actual TRUTH.

I remain astonished at how successful the Left has been at achieving this.

So - this following link has been available from Fox News for YEARS ... may I suggest that now, someone actually takes a look at it ??

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdfd)

This PDF document shows, clearly, that hundreds of degraded WMD's had been found. It highlights the concern of their continuing viability/usefulness to terrorists, even if not usable as WMD's. It also goes on to project the likelihood of more WMD's yet to be found.

This is NOT a political document - it is a portion of an Intelligence Report. Santorum was one of a number of high-powered figures included in its dissemination, including Nancy Pelosi.

So, why didn't the world's Press ever release this information ? BECAUSE IT WASN'T CONDUCIVE TO LEFT WING INTERESTS TO PROVE THE VALIDITY OF GW BUSH'S ACTIONS !! A case of Left-wing propaganda interests winning out over the truth if there ever was one.

OK, Noir Lemongrass ... start rubbishing this Report. You know you want to, since you can hardly admit to its accuracy, now, CAN you ??

[aboutime]

Noir, Lemongrass ... I see you're doing the Leftie propagandist thing of denying the existence of WMD's in Iraq, circa (and beyond) 2003 ??

It's a nice little fiction that the Left has perpetrated on the world, for an astonishingly long time.

The TRUTH, folks, is that an American Senator by the name of Rick Santorum held a press conference in June 2006, during which he disclosed to the attending reporters a couple of pages of a newly-declassified document originating from US Intelligence. In it, the report made clear that in excess of 500 old WMD's had been located in Iraq.

I have posted on this a number of times before, both here and on other forums ... and I consider this a prime example of where the Left has succeeded in promoting its preferred propaganda, and in so doing, has successfully managed to substitute THAT for the actual TRUTH.

I remain astonished at how successful the Left has been at achieving this.

So - this following link has been available from Fox News for YEARS ... may I suggest that now, someone actually takes a look at it ??

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdfd)

This PDF document shows, clearly, that hundreds of degraded WMD's had been found. It highlights the concern of their continuing viability/usefulness to terrorists, even if not usable as WMD's. It also goes on to project the likelihood of more WMD's yet to be found.

This is NOT a political document - it is a portion of an Intelligence Report. Santorum was one of a number of high-powered figures included in its dissemination, including Nancy Pelosi.

So, why didn't the world's Press ever release this information ? BECAUSE IT WASN'T CONDUCIVE TO LEFT WING INTERESTS TO PROVE THE VALIDITY OF GW BUSH'S ACTIONS !! A case of Left-wing propaganda interests winning out over the truth if there ever was one.

OK, Noir Lemongrass ... start rubbishing this Report. You know you want to, since you can hardly admit to its accuracy, now, CAN you ??


Sir Drummond. Funny stuff. If I wasn't reading their names here. Noir, and Lemongrass, I would almost swear they are both STANDING IN for jafar.

Those kinds of propaganda specialists only manage to convince...THEMSELVES.

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. Funny stuff. If I wasn't reading their names here. Noir, and Lemongrass, I would almost swear they are both STANDING IN for jafar.

Those kinds of propaganda specialists only manage to convince...THEMSELVES.

Nicely put. Though I'm afraid that your second sentence wouldn't ring true for people on my side of the Pond, at least.

If/when Noir sees my post, for example, there's a high probability that he will genuinely have no idea about previous 'finds'.

Of course, he'll question it (if he doesn't just ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist). I can't imagine he'll be willing to accept such evidence, since UK and European media have consistently agreed that nothing at all has been found. Besides, to agree that the evidence was bona fide would be too harmful to Left-wing propaganda .. both its substance, AND the fact of its pernicious success ...

[aboutime]

Nicely put. Though I'm afraid that your second sentence wouldn't ring true for people on my side of the Pond, at least.

If/when Noir sees my post, for example, there's a high probability that he will genuinely have no idea about previous 'finds'.

Of course, he'll question it (if he doesn't just ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist). I can't imagine he'll be willing to accept such evidence, since UK and European media have consistently agreed that nothing at all has been found. Besides, to agree that the evidence was bona fide would be too harmful to Left-wing propaganda .. both its substance, AND the fact of its pernicious success ...


Right you are. And the bottom line continues to be. As many of us are so acutely aware here in the U.S. Some people simply refuse to accept, or believe TRUTH. It tends to confuse, and mystify them since it is the exact opposite of what their BRAINWASHING has taught them.:laugh: NO JOKE INTENDED.

[red state]

About Time wrote: "Iraq is a big country. hiding WMD's underground for me was always a given. the libtards insisted on actually seeing a nuke sitting on a launch pad. Hussein was not that stupid"
__________________________________________________ ___


Noir, Lemongrass ... I see you're doing the Leftie propagandist thing of denying the existence of WMD's in Iraq, circa (and beyond) 2003 ??

It's a nice little fiction that the Left has perpetrated on the world, for an astonishingly long time.

The TRUTH, folks, is that an American Senator by the name of Rick Santorum held a press conference in June 2006, during which he disclosed to the attending reporters a couple of pages of a newly-declassified document originating from US Intelligence. In it, the report made clear that in excess of 500 old WMD's had been located in Iraq.

I have posted on this a number of times before, both here and on other forums ... and I consider this a prime example of where the Left has succeeded in promoting its preferred propaganda, and in so doing, has successfully managed to substitute THAT for the actual TRUTH.

I remain astonished at how successful the Left has been at achieving this.

So - this following link has been available from Fox News for YEARS ... may I suggest that now, someone actually takes a look at it ??

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdfd)

This PDF document shows, clearly, that hundreds of degraded WMD's had been found. It highlights the concern of their continuing viability/usefulness to terrorists, even if not usable as WMD's. It also goes on to project the likelihood of more WMD's yet to be found.

This is NOT a political document - it is a portion of an Intelligence Report. Santorum was one of a number of high-powered figures included in its dissemination, including Nancy Pelosi.

So, why didn't the world's Press ever release this information ? BECAUSE IT WASN'T CONDUCIVE TO LEFT WING INTERESTS TO PROVE THE VALIDITY OF GW BUSH'S ACTIONS !! A case of Left-wing propaganda interests winning out over the truth if there ever was one.

OK, Noir Lemongrass ... start rubbishing this Report. You know you want to, since you can hardly admit to its accuracy, now, CAN you ??


My hat is off to both of you...........and others who have taken a position of common sense. I knew this would bring out the liberal in the more liberal among us and that it would show who among us are the REAL conservatives. Have we found that missing plane yet.....is Iraq a HUGE country......were our troops mainly focused in areas around major cities with very little (if any) battle fought in the open desert.....and will liberals EVER give credence to TRUTH or have the honor to admit when they are wrong when going against America (regardless of the source from which the info was provided)? We have seen the attacks right off the bat and same arguments we saw years ago.......even AFTER the WMD was found.

I stated that and have stated over and over that I was not a fan of the Bush Family (none of them) and I started this thread by asking a question and provided (as requested) a link from many sources that I could have chosen within the search after hearing that ISIS found and could use these so-called none-existing weapons. But to get down to the meat and potatoes of the matter: This is old news to those of us who were confident in our intel and why our men needed to go take care of business. The left would have praised B.O. had he done what Bush did YET they still to this day refuse to call B.O. for what he is. We could have NOT supported ISIS, we could have NOT funded them and we most certainly could have targeted the lot of them when they were out in the open and BEFORE they reached the towns that they've now terrorized and destroyed. We most definitely could have stopped them before they discovered WMD and I'm sure the left is secretly hating B.O. for proving them wrong. So let the attacks continue.....I'm fine with it. it is quite funny actually because I'm a 'Conservative' and I'm RIGHT! Now roll that up and smoke it!

[red state]

http://www.investors.com/image/RAMclr-081414-golf-IBD-COLOR-FINAL.gif.cms
This ignorance from those who IGNORE is astounding!!!

[fj1200]

Noir, Lemongrass ... I see you're doing the Leftie propagandist thing of denying the existence of WMD's in Iraq, circa (and beyond) 2003 ??

Um, no. They asked a question. Shocking, I know.

[Noir]

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdfd) This PDF document shows, clearly, that hundreds of degraded WMD's had been found.

Mkay lets see what we're working with here.
*Clicks Link*
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j176/jonathan-mcc/DC37B333-2334-497B-A245-B5B7424063D4_zpsl9pzhuz2.png (http://s80.photobucket.com/user/jonathan-mcc/media/DC37B333-2334-497B-A245-B5B7424063D4_zpsl9pzhuz2.png.html)

...*dies*
Omg, thank you sir for a joke that surpasses any i could of made xD

[fj1200]

Mkay lets see what we're working with here.
*Clicks Link*

...*dies*
Omg, thank you sir for a joke that surpasses any i could of made xD

Before you get ahead of yourself here's the actual link.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

[Noir]

Before you get ahead of yourself here's the actual link.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

Yeah i worked that out, still though, a comedy treasure for those golden seconds.

Here's some key facts of another report to pour over drummond! http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/06_10_04_isg.pdf

And some quotes from some guy called Blair...

"The evidence about Saddam having actual biological and chemical weapons, as opposed to the capability to develop them, has turned out to be wrong. I acknowledge that and accept it.
"...and the problem is, I can apologise for the information that turned out to be wrong"
"I can apologise for the information being wrong but I can never apologise, sincerely at least, for removing Saddam."
"We expected, I expected to find actual usable, chemical or biological weapons after we entered Iraq...but I have to accept, as the months have passed, it seems increasingly clear that at the time of invasion, Saddam did not have stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons ready to deploy."
Then again he's probably just some biased leftie.

[Drummond]

Mkay lets see what we're working with here.
*Clicks Link*
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j176/jonathan-mcc/DC37B333-2334-497B-A245-B5B7424063D4_zpsl9pzhuz2.png (http://s80.photobucket.com/user/jonathan-mcc/media/DC37B333-2334-497B-A245-B5B7424063D4_zpsl9pzhuz2.png.html)

...*dies*
Omg, thank you sir for a joke that surpasses any i could of made xD

Well now, Noir. That was predictable, wasn't it ??

I knew you'd have to try something like this. Because you dare not admit the enormity of the deception perpetrated on the world in general by denying so many people knowledge of what was REALLY true.

A couple of points:

1. A minor point. Your attempt at access 'died' because, for some reason, clicking on my link added an extra character to the end of the link address, invalidating its usefulness as a means of straight access ... as you must surely know ... ?? The link, as it was CORRECTLY addressed, should have worked. As indeed it did, ultimately.

2. Rather more to the point ... your wholly predicted 'rubbishing' exercise has proved to be exactly that. Where do you, yourself, directly challenge any of the actual contents of the document ?

I WANT YOU TO GO ON RECORD AND DIRECTLY REFUTE IT, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, IN PART OR IN TOTAL. Because - as ALSO expected - you've AVOIDED actually doing that.

... haven't you, Noir ?

3. On your later 'Blair' point, two comments. Firstly, I saw you dive for the Left-wing propaganda of the BBC to try and make your point ? The BBC was part of the cloak of total silence the UK experienced ... wasn't it ? So, obviously, they themselves have much to lose if it was ever widely known that they'd suppressed such information. Secondly ... Blair, in common with other democratically elected leaders, is prey to the electorate's perception of them. With a press determined to keep key facts silenced, Blair was forced to react to the 'reality' that the press had crafted for him, over years. Short of going to war against the UK's press, calling them all deceivers ... what ELSE was open to him ?? But more even than that .. he had defections in his own Cabinet, didn't he, and parts of his own Party turning against him. So ... what Blair was having to handle, and the public's perception of it, could hardly have been easy !!

Noir, refute the document I posted a link to -- I dare you. Tell us that Santorum lied. Or, that the US Intelligence community lied ....

Will you really go that far ?

I suppose it depends how very desperate you are to keep the Leftie propaganda you prefer alive, eh ... ????

[namvet]

Before you get ahead of yourself here's the actual link.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

your weak and feeble minded

[revelarts]

I'm going to toss this in the mix and then fade away again


But we've done the "but.. but.. there were WMDs in Iraq" thing before... a few time.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29618-My-My-It-Seems-Wikileaks-Also-Show-That-All-Those-Intelligence-Agencies-Were-Right

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31220-Iraq-war-the-Intel-was-Cooked-on-purpose




but to summeries again the UN and the US crawled up Iraqs butt in 2000-2002, tagging, documenting and Completing the last bit of disarmament of Saddam's OLD munitions and facilities. The UN documented what had been destroyed--- MOST of it--- and what was old and left over TO be destroyed or removed. If your read UN inspector Blixs testimony in 2002 he documents what's Yet to be removed and mentioned some difficulty in methods to clear them finally but that they were SECURE. and not a threat.

you guys Act like it was, and is, a threat. ANY amount of bleach or Drano is "evidence" that Saddam had the level the of WMD's to justify invasion, And Claimed by the Bush Admin.

if you read the articles on the current ISIS capture they say
Quote:

<tbody>
Stockpiles of chemical munitions are still stored there. The most dangerous ones have been declared to the UN and are sealed in bunkers.

Although declared, the bunkers contents have yet to be confirmed.

These areas of the compound pose a hazard to civilians and potential blackmarketers.

Numerous bunkers, including eleven cruciform shaped bunkers were exploited. Some of the bunkers were empty. Some of the bunkers contained large quantities of unfilled chemical munitions, conventional munitions, one-ton shipping containers, old disabled production equipment (presumed disabled under UNSCOM supervision), and other hazardous industrial chemicals.

17.05 The Chemical Weapons Convention, which Iraq joined in 2009, requires it to dispose of the material at Al Muthanna, even though it was declared unusable and "does not pose a significant security risk"

However, the UK government has acknowledged that the nature of the material contained in the two bunkers would make the destruction process difficult and technically challenging.

Under an agreement signed in Baghdad in July 2012, experts from the MOD’s Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) were due to provide training to Iraqi personnel in order to help them to dispose of the chemical munitions and agents....

</tbody>

But here the thing,
Bush and Friends told everyone that Saddam had
"Mobile Weapons labs..."
had "reconstituted his nuke and chemical weapons programs..."
they said they had 'An International Atomic Energy Agency report' indicated that Iraq could be as little as six months from making nuclear weapons (they didn't) ...
they said Saddam was capable of launching a chemical or biological attack in 45 minutes that could strike the UK....
Yellow cake from Africa...
aluminum tubes...
Anthrax...
1st warning a Mushroom cloud...
AAAAAHHHH!

the U.N. Inspectors and even the U.S. joint Intel report from the CIA DIA NSA etc said it ain't so.
Bush and friends later admited that it wasn't/isn't so.
so what are you guys trying to say here?

Look, if you guys don't mind the kind of lies fisherman tell, maybe you can says Bush and cronies weren't lying.
There were indeed some WMDs left over from the 80's.
And a 1/2 pound Gold fish is the same as a 300,000 pound blue whale.
It's a fish, right, that's all that matters. so it wasn't really a package of lies, it was DA TRUTH.
but OH wait , blue whales are not really fish.
hmmm but details don't matter right?

[Noir]

I WANT YOU TO GO ON RECORD AND DIRECTLY REFUTE IT, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, IN PART OR IN TOTAL. Because - as ALSO expected - you've AVOIDED actually doing that.

They found degraded chemical weapons munitions.
A+
They didn't find any active and non-degraded munitions, at least none that were mentioned in your report.



3. On your later 'Blair' point, two comments. Firstly, I saw you dive for the Left-wing propaganda of the BBC to try and make your point ? The BBC was part of the cloak of total silence the UK experienced ... wasn't it ? So, obviously, they themselves have much to lose if it was ever widely known that they'd suppressed such information. Secondly ... Blair, in common with other democratically elected leaders, is prey to the electorate's perception of them. With a press determined to keep key facts silenced, Blair was forced to react to the 'reality' that the press had crafted for him, over years. Short of going to war against the UK's press, calling them all deceivers ... what ELSE was open to him ?? But more even than that .. he had defections in his own Cabinet, didn't he, and parts of his own Party turning against him. So ... what Blair was having to handle, and the public's perception of it, could hardly have been easy !!

...so you think that Blair lied about not finding WMD, so that he would conform to a media lie about not finding WMD, for which the media were attacking him...am i getting that right?

[Drummond]

I'm going to toss this in the mix and then fade away again


But we've done the "but.. but.. there were WMDs in Iraq" thing before... a few time.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29618-My-My-It-Seems-Wikileaks-Also-Show-That-All-Those-Intelligence-Agencies-Were-Right

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31220-Iraq-war-the-Intel-was-Cooked-on-purpose




but to summeries again the UN and the US crawled up Iraqs butt in 2000-2002, tagging, documenting and Completing the last bit of disarmament of Saddam's OLD munitions and facilities. The UN documented what had been destroyed--- MOST of it--- and what was old and left over TO be destroyed or removed. If your read UN inspector Blixs testimony in 2002 he documents what's Yet to be removed and mentioned some difficulty in methods to clear them finally but that they were SECURE. and not a threat.

you guys Act like it was, and is, a threat. ANY amount of bleach or Drano is "evidence" that Saddam had the level the of WMD's to justify invasion, And Claimed by the Bush Admin.

if you read the articles on the current ISIS capture they say
Quote:

<tbody>
Stockpiles of chemical munitions are still stored there. The most dangerous ones have been declared to the UN and are sealed in bunkers.

Although declared, the bunkers contents have yet to be confirmed.

These areas of the compound pose a hazard to civilians and potential blackmarketers.

Numerous bunkers, including eleven cruciform shaped bunkers were exploited. Some of the bunkers were empty. Some of the bunkers contained large quantities of unfilled chemical munitions, conventional munitions, one-ton shipping containers, old disabled production equipment (presumed disabled under UNSCOM supervision), and other hazardous industrial chemicals.

17.05 The Chemical Weapons Convention, which Iraq joined in 2009, requires it to dispose of the material at Al Muthanna, even though it was declared unusable and "does not pose a significant security risk"

However, the UK government has acknowledged that the nature of the material contained in the two bunkers would make the destruction process difficult and technically challenging.

Under an agreement signed in Baghdad in July 2012, experts from the MOD’s Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) were due to provide training to Iraqi personnel in order to help them to dispose of the chemical munitions and agents....

</tbody>

But here the thing,
Bush and Friends told everyone that Saddam had
"Mobile Weapons labs..."
had "reconstituted his nuke and chemical weapons programs..."
they said they had 'An International Atomic Energy Agency report' indicated that Iraq could be as little as six months from making nuclear weapons (they didn't) ...
they said Saddam was capable of launching a chemical or biological attack in 45 minutes that could strike the UK....
Yellow cake from Africa...
aluminum tubes...
Anthrax...
1st warning a Mushroom cloud...
AAAAAHHHH!

the U.N. Inspectors and even the U.S. joint Intel report from the CIA DIA NSA etc said it ain't so.
Bush and friends later admited that it wasn't/isn't so.
so what are you guys trying to say here?

Look, if you guys don't mind the kind of lies fisherman tell, maybe you can says Bush and cronies weren't lying.
There were indeed some WMDs left over from the 80's.
And a 1/2 pound Gold fish is the same as a 300,000 pound blue whale.
It's a fish, right, that's all that matters. so it wasn't really package of lies it was DA TRUTH.
but OH wait blue whales are not really fish.
hmmm but details don't matter right?

You're promptly 'fading away' again ? I don't blame you.

You've done what Noir has done. A rubbishing exercise ... AS PREDICTED. You've tried to take a position ... but one falling SHORT of directly calling Santorum a liar, and one falling short of accusing your own Intelligence people of lying.

Interesting that such reluctance to go quite that far is proving to be an increasingly dominant fact of this thread .....

What should we conclude from this .. ?

[Drummond]

They found degraded chemical weapons munitions.
A+
They didn't find any active and non-degraded munitions, at least none that were mentioned in your report.

So what ? Where, in UN Resolution 1441, was it ever required that WMD's discovered had to be in pristine condition ?

That Intelligence Report absolutely proves there was a need to invade Iraq. You must hate its existence because of that.

But regardless, those captured WMD's were still dangerous, and still useful to terrorists. The Report, which you're STILL refusing to say is false from your OWN words ... makes that point.


...so you think that Blair lied about not finding WMD, so that he would conform to a media lie about not finding WMD, for which the media were attacking him...am i getting that right?

The media were attacking him for being, amongst other things, 'Bush's Poodle', as I'm sure you know. And his own Party was also attacking him.

Place yourself in Blair's position. What else was open to him ?

[fj1200]

your weak and feeble minded

You should pay better attention. I'm the one who posted the correct link. Unless you are letting your imagination get ahead of you too. ;)

[Noir]

So what ? Where, in UN Resolution 1441, was it ever required that WMD's discovered had to be in pristine condition ?

That Intelligence Report absolutely proves there was a need to invade Iraq. You must hate its existence because of that.

It in no way proves any such need.


But regardless, those captured WMD's were still dangerous, and still useful to terrorists. The Report, which you're STILL refusing to say is false from your OWN words ... makes that point.

I'm 'refusing to say its false' because it almost certainly is not false. They found old, degraded chemicals. Britain did not go to war because of the fear of degraded weapons.



The media were attacking him for being, amongst other things, 'Bush's Poodle', as I'm sure you know. And his own Party was also attacking him.

Place yourself in Blair's position. What else was open to him ?

Your right, the only reasonable thing for him to do in such a position, is to lie, and in doing so reinforce the messages made by those attacking him for poodling.

[revelarts]

You're promptly 'fading away' again ? I don't blame you.

You've done what Noir has done. A rubbishing exercise ... AS PREDICTED. You've tried to take a position ... but one falling SHORT of directly calling Santorum a liar, and one falling short of accusing your own Intelligence people of lying.

Interesting that such reluctance to go quite that far is proving to be an increasingly dominant fact of this thread .....

What should we conclude from this .. ?

:rolleyes:

just for you Drummond

http://countercurrentnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Untitled-82.jpg
As it turns out, the group that he was meeting with was a particular subset of rebels in Syria, who we now know as ISIS.That’s right, the very same terrorist group ISIS which is carrying out ruthless acts of terror and crime in Iraq as we speak, was who McCain was meeting with in Syria.

When the Arizona senator got back from his trip to Syria, he said…
“It was a very moving experience to meet these fighters who have been struggling now for over two years,” McCain said on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360”.
“And they’re very aware of the battlefield situation” the Arizona senator continued, “and they’re very disturbed about the dramatic influx of Hezbollah fighters, more Iranians, and of course, stepped-up activities of Bashar Assad
http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/06/isis-post-pr-photos-they-took-with-john-mccain/


bye

<tbody>



</tbody>

[Gaffer]

:rolleyes:

just for you Drummond

http://countercurrentnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Untitled-82.jpg
As it turns out, the group that he was meeting with was a particular subset of rebels in Syria, who we now know as ISIS.That’s right, the very same terrorist group ISIS which is carrying out ruthless acts of terror and crime in Iraq as we speak, was who McCain was meeting with in Syria.

When the Arizona senator got back from his trip to Syria, he said…
“It was a very moving experience to meet these fighters who have been struggling now for over two years,” McCain said on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360”.
“And they’re very aware of the battlefield situation” the Arizona senator continued, “and they’re very disturbed about the dramatic influx of Hezbollah fighters, more Iranians, and of course, stepped-up activities of Bashar Assad
http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/06/isis-post-pr-photos-they-took-with-john-mccain/


bye

<tbody>



</tbody>




There's not a lot of folks here that have a high regard for Mcshame so this doesn't mean much. More than a few of us have comment on his visits to syria. So you throw this out as some kind of proof of something. You want to stick around and defend your claims or are you just gonna be a drive by poster?

If your gonna post and say "bye" then mean it. Leave, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

[aboutime]

Anyone happen to notice how When jafar silently stopped appearing here...that revelarts easily stepped in to take up the propaganda slack??

[Drummond]

It in no way proves any such need.

Of course it did .. for a couple of reasons.

One ... UN Resolution 1441 had been comprehensively, provably, defied by Saddam. Any lack of consequences from this would've proved to the world that the likes of Saddam could retain weaponry in total defiance of world opinion, to whatever degree wanted. Fast-forward to today. Would Saddam still have been in power, AND with fresh stocks of fully viable WMD's ? Would other tinpot dictators have been encouraged to keep their own, secure in the knowledge that they'd be safe in doing so ?

Two ... as already covered, even degraded WMD's are useful to terrorists. The Report itself says so. Now .. WHY would it be preferred for Saddam to keep that weaponry ... Saddam, supporter of Hamas ? Saddam, maverick invader of other Nation States ??

So your assertion is untrue. The invasion, the deposing of Saddam, was unavoidable. IT HAD TO HAPPEN.


I'm 'refusing to say its false' because it almost certainly is not false.

EXCELLENT. REMEMBER THAT YOU ADMITTED THAT ... BECAUSE YOU'RE ADMITTING THAT ANY PROPAGANDA SAYING THAT NO WMD'S WERE FOUND IS UNTRUE !!!


They found old, degraded chemicals.

Noir, it must be crucifying you to make these admissions, in defiance of established 'Leftie wisdom' on the subject. VERY WELL DONE !!


Britain did not go to war because of the fear of degraded weapons.

Arguable. Strictly speaking, that's fair comment. Nonetheless, those weapons were proof of the breakage of Res 1441. And it was Saddam's failure to come clean on his WMD stocks that DID prompt British action. So, I'd argue that you're wrong.


Your right, the only reasonable thing for him to do in such a position, is to lie, and in doing so reinforce the messages made by those attacking him for poodling.

Rather more to the point, Blair had to do what it took to not commit political suicide, yet ALSO in a way consistent with Britain's security needs. He did so.

It's to the Left's shame that it was, when defying Blair, the primary force in British politics which worked AGAINST THOSE INTERESTS.

But then, they ARE Lefties. So what else can you expect ?????

[Noir]

Of course it did .. for a couple of reasons.

One ... UN Resolution 1441 had been comprehensively, provably, defied by Saddam. Any lack of consequences from this would've proved to the world that the likes of Saddam could retain weaponry in total defiance of world opinion, to whatever degree wanted. Fast-forward to today. Would Saddam still have been in power, AND with fresh stocks of fully viable WMD's ? Would other tinpot dictators have been encouraged to keep their own, secure in the knowledge that they'd be safe in doing so ?

The case for war can be made without lies about WMD.


Two ... as already covered, even degraded WMD's are useful to terrorists. The Report itself says so. Now .. WHY would it be preferred for Saddam to keep that weaponry ... Saddam, supporter of Hamas ? Saddam, maverick invader of other Nation States ??

So your assertion is untrue. The invasion, the deposing of Saddam, was unavoidable. IT HAD TO HAPPEN.

It didn't have to happen, but it is well that it did.




EXCELLENT. REMEMBER THAT YOU ADMITTED THAT ... BECAUSE YOU'RE ADMITTING THAT ANY PROPAGANDA SAYING THAT NO WMD'S WERE FOUND IS UNTRUE !!!


WMDs where not found, degraded chemical weapons where.


Noir, it must be crucifying you to make these admissions, in defiance of established 'Leftie wisdom' on the subject. VERY WELL DONE !!

Yep. So so painful.
(...or rather, not at all)


Strictly speaking, that's fair comment. Nonetheless, those weapons were proof of the breakage of Res 1441. And it was Saddam's failure to come clean on his WMD stocks that DID prompt British action. So, I'd argue that you're wrong.

Rather more to the point, Blair had to do what it took to not commit political suicide, yet ALSO in a way consistent with Britain's security needs. He did so.

It's to the Left's shame that it was, when defying Blair, the primary force in British politics which worked AGAINST THOSE INTERESTS.

But then, they ARE Lefties. So what else can you expect ?????

Do you remember Blairs dossier for going to war? I'm sure you must have at least glanced at it...

[jimnyc]

I'm going to toss this in the mix and then fade away again


Of course, take your shots and run like a child. Going to take your ball with you too?

Anyway, as usual you ignore the data I posted. Too hard to combat it, as usual, so you toss out garbage and bail. The data I posted still stands.

[jimnyc]

They found degraded chemical weapons munitions.
A+
They didn't find any active and non-degraded munitions, at least none that were mentioned in your report.




...so you think that Blair lied about not finding WMD, so that he would conform to a media lie about not finding WMD, for which the media were attacking him...am i getting that right?

What about the hundreds of tons of chemical weapons accounted for? The ones that had tons and tons with the ability to be stored for decades? That went unaccounted for? Are we now saying that UN inspectors lied about this maybe, and lied about them being unaccounted for in inspections right up until 2003?

[jimnyc]

You're promptly 'fading away' again ? I don't blame you.

You've done what Noir has done. A rubbishing exercise ... AS PREDICTED. You've tried to take a position ... but one falling SHORT of directly calling Santorum a liar, and one falling short of accusing your own Intelligence people of lying.

Interesting that such reluctance to go quite that far is proving to be an increasingly dominant fact of this thread .....

What should we conclude from this .. ?

Honestly, if he's going to come in, and declare "bye" while posting his tripe, I would just ignore him. He wants to make his lunatic rants and not have to answer any questions. At least FJ will engage you and answer your questions, as will Noir. But if all you'll get is "bye", why bother.

[Drummond]

The case for war can be made without lies about WMD.

The case for war WAS made without lies about WMD's ! Saddam had some. He'd claimed otherwise. He defied the UN's Resolutions .. payback was highly necessary, as was, of course, securing any and all WMD's to be found.

So the case existed, and was acted upon. And it is surely unarguable to say that the world at large is a safer place, today, because of what happened.


It didn't have to happen, but it is well that it did.

Ah, you mean, we could've lived with a world teeming with WMD's, controlled by any manner and number of despotic nutters, who had nothing to fear from the UN, or a provably timid Western collection of powers ?

My best guess .. not all of us WOULD have lived in such a world. Chances are that, by now, dodgy deals would've been done with terrorists, and attacks dwarfing 9/11 would've been seen, killing HOW many people ??

Perhaps 'it didn't have to happen', IF that far more dangerous and deadly world had been allowed to come about.


WMDs where not found, degraded chemical weapons where.

Degraded WMD'S. That is a FACT.

A broken, nonfunctional machine is still identifiable as the machine it is. Likewise WMD's.


Yep. So so painful.
(...or rather, not at all)

I think that's shock talking ..... :rolleyes: ... you must be wondering how you're going to explain yourself to Leftie Central .. :rolleyes::rolleyes:


Do you remember Blairs dossier for going to war? I'm sure you must have at least glanced at it...

Not well, no. But what of it ? That he DID was very obviously a good thing.

Or is the 'WMD proliferation' scenario I described a BETTER one than what really transpired ?

[aboutime]

Some people simply cannot survive unless there is a Conspiracy Theory they can wrap their EMPTY brain around.

We see it everyday, in one form or another. The entertainment value is PRICELESS.

Just go to YOUTUBE, or GOOGLE, and type Conspiracy Theories.

Bring food, water, and a really soft pillow. And don't forget the Tissues from laughing yourself into tears.

[Drummond]

Honestly, if he's going to come in, and declare "bye" while posting his tripe, I would just ignore him. He wants to make his lunatic rants and not have to answer any questions. At least FJ will engage you and answer your questions, as will Noir. But if all you'll get is "bye", why bother.

Agreed, Jim ... I decided just that with his final post (.. besides, Gaffer posted his piece ..).

You're right. FJ will indeed 'engage me' ... until hell freezes over, if allowed to !!! Heyy, and on a good day, he might even quote me accurately !!!!

And Noir is at least game for some fair debate. Disagreements notwithstanding, Kudos to him for that, at least.

[fj1200]

You're right. FJ will indeed 'engage me' ... until hell freezes over, if allowed to !!! Heyy, and on a good day, he might even quote me accurately !!!!

Your problems only starts when your imagination takes over. :slap: This thread is a perfect example, you were imagining that Noir was denying WMDs in Iraq when he in fact made no such statement.

[Drummond]

Your problems only starts when your imagination takes over. :slap: This thread is a perfect example, you were imagining that Noir was denying WMDs in Iraq when he in fact made no such statement.

Is that so ?

Perhaps this is a figment of my imagination, then ....

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?46315-Is-it-true-Could-it-be-!!!-ISIS-finds-WMD-in-Iraq&p=699389#post699389

Typos notwithstanding, Noir posted ... this verbatim ....


WMDs where not found, degraded chemical weapons where.

:slap:

[fj1200]

Is that so ?

Perhaps this is a figment of my imagination, then ....

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?46315-Is-it-true-Could-it-be-!!!-ISIS-finds-WMD-in-Iraq&p=699389#post699389

Typos notwithstanding, Noir posted ... this verbatim ....

:slap:

Actually this is the first quote.


Which raises the question - If these disused chemical plants where in operation when Iraq was invaded, why didn't the Americans / British etc report from them at the time and say 'look, here are those WMDs!' ?

And then you essentially agree with him.


Degraded WMD'S. That is a FACT.

And it's hardly a glaring denial of WMDs. You just couldn't wait to jump in with both feet on another "leftie" diatribe. Of course this isn't really a new validation of Bush since we've known about it for years.


A CIA report on the facility said that 150 tons of mustard were produced each year at the peak from 1983 and pilot-scale production of Sarin began in 1984.Its most recent description of al-Muthanna in 2007 paints a disturbing picture of chemicals strewn throughout the area.
“Two wars, sanctions and UN oversight reduced Iraqi’s premier production facility to a stockpile of old damaged and contaminated chemical munitions (sealed in bunkers), a wasteland full of destroyed chemical munitions, razed structures, and unusable war-ravaged facilities,” it said.
“Some of the bunkers contained large quantities of unfilled chemical munitions, conventional munitions, one-ton shipping containers, old disabled production equipment and other hazardous industrial chemicals.”
Britain has previously acknowledgeded that the nature of the material contained in the two bunkers would make the destruction process difficult and technically challenging.
Under an agreement signed in Baghdad in July 2012, experts from the MOD’s Defence Science and Technology Laboratory were due to provide training to Iraqi personnel in order to help them to dispose of the chemical munitions and agents.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10913275/Isis-storms-Saddam-era-chemical-weapons-complex-in-Iraq.html

[Drummond]

I think you're arguing for the sake of it, FJ. My previous post stands as it is.

Noir's questioning of the operation of chemical plants at the time of the Iraq invasion was not something I really concerned myself with. It's also somewhat beside the point ... their EXISTENCE, whether operational or not, was surely the key factor ?

If dormant at the time of the invasion, still, they had the capacity to NOT be. Which in turn is just more cause to justify the invasion (... as if it was needed ..).

Here's another point -- has any authority, at any time, verifiably concluded that the whole of Iraq was searched either for WMD's, or plants capable of producing them ? If not ... who can say what might have been missed in times gone by ?

Noir contested whether the degraded weapons were WMD's. I said they were, even if nonfunctional. Noir's point was to say the opposite.

Check for yourself.

[Noir]

The case for war WAS made without lies about WMD's

Apparently you're the only British person (I'm aware of) to not know Britain's case for war. Have you been sleeping through the Chilcot Inquiry?

The alternative being that you believe every word of Alastair Campbell's Iraq Dossier... and I don't believe for a minute you'd swallow a sweetened cherry pie, if it was Campbell that personally offered it to you.

[Drummond]

Apparently you're the only British person (I'm aware of) to not know Britain's case for war. Have you been sleeping through the Chilcot Inquiry?

The alternative being that you believe every word of Alastair Campbell's Iraq Dossier... and I don't believe for a minute you'd swallow a sweetened cherry pie, if it was Campbell that personally offered it to you.

Ah yes, the Chilcot Inquiry. 'Thanks' for the reminder, Noir. The long-awaited, hoped-for official stitch-up of figures such as Blair. You see, folks, it was hoped that a climate could be created in the UK from which any leading politician would think several times about ever following the US into another equivalent of Iraq ... such is the sheer perniciousness of British Leftieism.

See ....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/10597497/How-Chilcot-could-slap-the-cuffs-on-Tony-Blair.html


Twiggy Garcia was working in a restaurant in Shoreditch, east London, last week when he learnt that Tony Blair was in the building.“My heart rate increased,” he said. “There was an eerie presence … I went over to him, put my hand on his shoulder, and said, 'Mr Blair, this is a citizen’s arrest for a crime against peace, namely your decision to launch an unprovoked war against Iraq.’”

Sadly, Mr Garcia couldn’t quite see it through. “One of [Mr Blair’s] sons went to get the plain-clothes security from downstairs,” he said. “I decided to get out of there sharpish. I’ve had a few run-ins with the police in the past and it never ends well.”

But as Sir John Chilcot’s Iraq inquiry shows signs of at last creaking to a close, could it be the former civil servant who finally slaps the metaphorical cuffs on Mr Blair? Ten years to the week after the first official Iraq investigation, by Lord Hutton, was published, it seems clear that this one will be more critical. Key figures in the debacle are showing distinct signs of nervousness.

Sir Richard Dearlove, the then MI6 chief who presided over the famous, sexed-up intelligence dossier, has written his own version of events and is threatening to publish it if he feels too strongly criticised by Chilcot.

Lord Mandelson recently described Chilcot as “what could be a very difficult minefield” for the Labour Party. Blair allies have been briefing friendly journalists that he is “deeply concerned” about the report, though this may be expectation management to make the actual criticism look better by comparison.

Nobody close to the inquiry will talk directly about its findings – which are, in any case, subject to change as part of the “Maxwellisation” process, where witnesses are privately sent previews of any criticisms made about them and invited to comment. But sources pointed towards certain passages of evidence, often under-reported at the time they were given, as carrying particular weight with at least some of the five-strong inquiry panel.

On January 13, 2010, the day after one star witness, Mr Blair’s spin man, Alastair Campbell, appeared before Chilcot, the inquiry heard from the Cabinet Secretary at the time of the invasion, Andrew Turnbull. Lord Turnbull gave evidence again, as did his predecessor, Lord Wilson, on January 25 2011, a few days after Mr Blair had made his second appearance.

Both times, the TV circus for Mr Campbell and Mr Blair had folded its tents and the ex-mandarins’ sessions were barely covered in the Press.
But they were devastating. Lord Turnbull said that he and the Cabinet had essentially been deceived, “brought into the story … a long way behind” what had already been agreed by what he described as Mr Blair’s “entourage”. The Cabinet never saw any papers at all, he said. Lord Wilson, who left six months before the war, testified that at his final meeting with the Prime Minister he had told Mr Blair that he had a worrying “gleam in his eye” over military action.

Lord Turnbull added that had Lord Wilson known the full picture – that a note had already been sent to President George W Bush promising, in his words, that “you can count on us whatever”, Lord Wilson “would not have described it [just] as a gleam”.

In his 2010 evidence, Lord Turnbull also spoke of how “a process of a kind of granny’s footsteps had taken place” over the famous Iraq intelligence dossier.

“At each stage,” he said, “you can see another little tweak of the dial.”

The central charge Chilcot appears likely to make is that the decision on war was the beginning, not the end, of the process; that an agreement on military action was made early, and secretly, with President Bush; and that it was done without evidential justification, proper procedures, legal advice or adequate military planning. All three of these were later twisted to fit, most disastrously in the case of the planning, which was kept secret for far too long, meaning that coalition forces were completely unprepared to occupy, secure and rebuild the country they had broken.

Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, and several other witnesses, testified that “containment”, the pre-2002 policy of sanctions on Iraq, appeared to be working.

As Mr Straw put it: “Objectively, the threat had not increased.” Why, therefore, was a war needed? The mere fact of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) had been known, or assumed, for the previous 15 years. It had never been seen as a good enough reason to go to war before.

There y'go, Noir. Happy, now ?

You see .. in this thread, Noir has been in the unhappy position of having to give way where evidence has been offered to show that WMD's were indeed found in Iraq, this in turn showing how vital the Iraq War was. So, now, the Chilcot Inquiry has been introduced into the mix, partly as a diversion, partly to rebalance a losing situation back in the Left's favour.

The Chilcot Inquiry was a British Government-commissioned Inquiry into the Iraq War, and senior Government figures' part in it.

The truth of it is that the Inquiry was an official means to bring a 'blame game' process into a consideration of Governmental machinations. Feelings ran hot in the Labour Party, and in other sections of the community, about Blair ever 'daring' to take his strong stance on Iraq. Many hated, with a barely believable passion, the close cooperation Blair gave Bush. Chilcot was hoped-for payback.

This is what you get in a Society run for too long by Socialism. Have a man take a reputable, principled stance against an international evil ... and Socialism reacts against it, if the outcome might be less than 'politically correct'. Blair was demonised. He suffered humiliating Cabinet resignations for daring to be such a good ally to Bush and to America. Any and every possible excuse was found to attack him.

[aboutime]

Ah yes, the Chilcot Inquiry. 'Thanks' for the reminder, Noir. The long-awaited, hoped-for official stitch-up of figures such as Blair. You see, folks, it was hoped that a climate could be created in the UK from which any leading politician would think several times about ever following the US into another equivalent of Iraq ... such is the sheer perniciousness of British Leftieism.

See ....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/10597497/How-Chilcot-could-slap-the-cuffs-on-Tony-Blair.html



There y'go, Noir. Happy, now ?

You see .. in this thread, Noir has been in the unhappy position of having to give way where evidence has been offered to show that WMD's were indeed found in Iraq, this in turn showing how vital the Iraq War was. So, now, the Chilcot Inquiry has been introduced into the mix, partly as a diversion, partly to rebalance a losing situation back in the Left's favour.

The Chilcot Inquiry was a British Government-commissioned Inquiry into the Iraq War, and senior Government figures' part in it.

The truth of it is that the Inquiry was an official means to bring a 'blame game' process into a consideration of Governmental machinations. Feelings ran hot in the Labour Party, and in other sections of the community, about Blair ever 'daring' to take his strong stance on Iraq. Many hated, with a barely believable passion, the close cooperation Blair gave Bush. Chilcot was hoped-for payback.

This is what you get in a Society run for too long by Socialism. Have a man take a reputable, principled stance against an international evil ... and Socialism reacts against it, if the outcome might be less than 'politically correct'. Blair was demonised. He suffered humiliating Cabinet resignations for daring to be such a good ally to Bush and to America. Any and every possible excuse was found to attack him.



Sir Drummond. Truth be told. Noir is now practicing the American, Liberal, Obama tactics of BLAME.

Almost like the child who knows he did something wrong, but uses the EXCUSE..."But...if Johnny can do it. Why can't I do it too?"

[Noir]

You're talking in the past tense about an ongoing inquiry =/

and there's a difference between having 'close co-operation' with the US, and rewriting the details of a dossier to align with statements Bush made in a speech, no?

In any case i look forward to reading the report, as should you.

[Drummond]

You're taking in the past tense about an ongoing inquiry =/

and there's a difference between having 'close co-operation' with the US, and rewriting the details of a dossier to align with statements Bush made in a speech, no?

In any case i look forward to reading the report, as should you.

And for how long, Noir, has this Inquiry been running ?!? YOU tell ME !

If Chilcot and his Inquiry had such a 'cut and dried' case to deliberate on, why is it STILL an issue ? The quote I've offered refers to a witness appearing before the Inquiry back at the beginning of 2010 !!!

No, Noir. You and I both know that one specific brand of outcome is sought from it. Chilcot and his people, clearly, do NOT have the easy task it was hoped they WOULD have, in order to get that brand of outcome.

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. Truth be told. Noir is now practicing the American, Liberal, Obama tactics of BLAME.

Almost like the child who knows he did something wrong, but uses the EXCUSE..."But...if Johnny can do it. Why can't I do it too?"

Well said.

The thing of it is, though, that - on and off - my Society has suffered bouts of Socialist domination of it for several decades. What you're now getting a dose of, courtesy of Obama and his crew, is by comparison a mere fledgling version of the true extent of Socialist harm.

I'd be willing to bet that Obama has learned a lot of his methodology from the likes of 'us' over here.

Socialism finds ways of crushing the spirit out of an individual. Blair, granted, had his own Socialist instincts, his own Leftie sensibilities and agenda. For all that, though .. his support of the War on Terrorism showed us at least a streak of reputability .. surprising, but also undeniable. And many on the Left hate him for it.

Chilcot is an official 'blame game' exercise which it is hoped will bring what Socialists want .. a redressing of a balance which will make it supremely difficult for a 'Blair Mark II' to ever emerge. The depths of officialdom brought to bear to consolidate State power in such a way as to perpetuate a psychology that entrenches Socialist sensibilities into the fabric of life here.

[Noir]

And for how long, Noir, has this Inquiry been running ?!? YOU tell ME ! If Chilcot and his Inquiry had such a 'cut and dried' case to deliberate on, why is it STILL an issue ? The quote I've offered refers to a witness appearing before the Inquiry back at the beginning of 2010 !!! No, Noir. You and I both know that one specific brand of outcome is sought from it. Chilcot and his people, clearly, do NOT have the easy task it was hoped they WOULD have, in order to get that brand of outcome.

The inquiry is covering a decade, and has been running for 5 years or so.

You're stating the inquiry is bias, based on what?

If this inquiry was heard and reported on within a year i have no doubt you'd point to that as 'proof' that the inquiry had decided the outcome before properly investigating... since in reality it's taking 'too long'...well that's because they're finding it hard to get the outcome that want.

Apparently missing from you analysis, is the fact that you have already decided the outcome. No?

You've also stated that Tony Blair lied about the WMDs that 'were found', for press favour? Which to be frank, blows my lil mind.

[Drummond]

The inquiry is covering a decade, and has been running for 5 years or so.

You're stating the inquiry is bias, based on what?

If this inquiry was heard and reported on within a year i have no doubt you'd point to that as 'proof' that the inquiry had decided the outcome before properly investigating... since in reality it's taking 'too long'...well that's because they're finding it hard to get the outcome that want.

Apparently missing from you analysis, is the fact that you have already decided the outcome. No?

You've also stated that Tony Blair lied about the WMDs that 'were found', for press favour? Which to be frank, blows my lil mind.

On your last point, I've explained already. Blair was stuck with Press unwillingness to disseminate relevant facts about Iraq. So far as almost all British people 'know', no WMD's AT ALL were ever found in Iraq. Santorum's Press conference saw a very limited release of the document he'd just received. But it also saw overseas Press organisations go totally silent on the whole matter. Not ONE report on it was released.

So, so far as the British press 'position' was concerned, there was 'no evidence whatever' of WMD's in Iraq, and this became the accepted version. In the face of powerful forces utterly determined to maintain a British public's belief in the fiction of zero WMD's, and with Blair already badly damaged by wreckers in his OWN Party, some of them whispering that he was some kind of 'war criminal' ... how could Blair survive a direct confrontation with our Press, one where he'd be accusing them all of sustained deception ???

Blair had enough to contend with, without committing political suicide as well.

You say that the Inquiry 'is covering a decade, and has been running for 5 years or so.' Then, why was Cameron talking, in May this year, of hoping it could report its findings this year ?

This is from a Daily Mail article going back to 2011 ....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1348462/Iraq-war-Chilcot-Inquiry-New-evidence-bury-Tony-Blair-lies.html


The Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War has dragged on for 14 months, and is far from over. Dozens of witnesses have been questioned, and millions of words of evidence amassed.

Even the most diligent onlooker may be forgiven for losing the plot. That may explain why a piece of *sensational information released by the inquiry on Monday has not yet caused the political earthquake it should have.

Many newspapers have so far either ignored or underplayed it, and the BBC has hitherto showed limited interest. And yet the new documents appear to establish more clearly than ever before that Tony Blair misled Parliament and the public about the legality of the war.

Some of the former Prime Minister’s political opponents and a few newspapers have previously accused him of lying, but the ‘smoking gun’ was never quite produced. This time it has been. His accuser is the former Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, a member of the Labour government before, during and after the invasion of Iraq.

In secret evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry, declassified on Monday, Lord Goldsmith stated that Mr Blair based his case for invasion on grounds that ‘did not have any *application in international law’. Coming from the man who was the Government’s senior law officer, this is an extremely serious charge.

Lord Goldsmith told the inquiry that he felt ‘uncomfortable’ about the way Mr Blair ignored his official legal advice when making his case to Parliament. Asked whether ‘the Prime Minister’s words were compatible with the advice you had given him’, he replied: ‘No.’

A specific incident to which the former Attorney General referred was Mr Blair’s statement to the Commons on January 15, 2003, when he asserted that ‘there are circumstances in which a UN resolution is not necessary, because it is necessary to be able to say, in *circumstances where an *unreasonable veto was put down, that we would still act’.

In other words, in his view Britain could legally ignore a veto in the UN Security *Council by France or Russia, both of which were opposed to an *invasion, and declare war on Iraq. Yet Lord Goldsmith had advised the Prime Minister the previous day that Britain did not have the legal right to invade Iraq.

Mr Blair repeated the fiction on BBC2’s Newsnight on *February 6, 2003 that Britain could disregard a UN veto. As when addressing MPs, he was suppressing the advice of the Government’s senior law officer. He also ignored similar legal advice from Elizabeth Wilmshurst, the Deputy Legal Adviser at the Foreign Office, who resigned on the eve of war.

Indeed, it is clear from Lord Goldsmith’s testimony that the Attorney General was ‘no longer actively consulted’ for several months after warning Mr Blair in person on October 22, 2002, that an Anglo-*American invasion of Iraq would be a breach of international law. He was frozen out.

For reasons that have never been properly explained, Lord Goldsmith changed his mind, and on March 17, 2003, days before the invasion of Iraq, he miraculously declared that it was legal after all.

Nobody on the Left wants to ever see a Blair #2 appear on the British political scene again. All this will teach politicians here that such a path will be politically ruinous for anyone trying it.

As I said: a stitch-up ...

[Noir]

On your last point, I've explained already. Blair was stuck with Press unwillingness to disseminate relevant facts about Iraq. So far as almost all British people 'know', no WMD's AT ALL were ever found in Iraq. Santorum's Press conference saw a very limited release of the document he'd just received. But it also saw overseas Press organisations go totally silent on the whole matter. Not ONE report on it was released. So, so far as the British press 'position' was concerned, there was 'no evidence whatever' of WMD's in Iraq, and this became the accepted version. In the face of powerful forces utterly determined to maintain a British public's belief in the fiction of zero WMD's, and with Blair already badly damaged by wreckers in his OWN Party, some of them whispering that he was some kind of 'war criminal' ... how could Blair survive a direct confrontation with our Press, one where he'd be accusing them all of sustained deception ??? Blair had enough to contend with, without committing political suicide as well. You say that the Inquiry 'is covering a decade, and has been running for 5 years or so.' Then, why was Cameron talking, in May this year, of hoping it could report its findings this year ? This is from a Daily Mail article going back to 2011 .... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1348462/Iraq-war-Chilcot-Inquiry-New-evidence-bury-Tony-Blair-lies.html Nobody on the Left wants to ever see a Blair #2 appear on the British political scene again. All this will teach politicians here that such a path will be politically ruinous for anyone trying it. As I said: a stitch-up ...

Your Blair conspiracy is hilarious. IMO.
As for the inquiry, yeah it was hoped to be this year, now looks like will be next year, or maybe 2016, who knows.
What we do know is you've decided your view on the outcome of the inquiry already. Poor show.
Anyways, the night marches on, sweet dreams Drummond, don't let the lefties bite!

[Drummond]

Your Blair conspiracy is hilarious. IMO.

Convenient, that.

Nonetheless, what I've stated fits the facts perfectly.


As for the inquiry, yeah it was hoped to be this year, now looks like will be next year, or maybe 2016, who knows.

Well .. 'you did' .. supposedly. You've claimed it had a further 5 years to run !! Now, you've had to rethink that.


What we do know is you've decided your view on the outcome of the inquiry already. Poor show.

It is, indeed, a VERY poor show. But then, with powerful Lefties skewing matters as much as they possibly can - and considering what's already occurred - I fail to see how I can possibly be wrong.

Re-read the previously quoted newspaper article, from the Mail. See for yourself how Lord Goldsmith, A LABOUR MAN, did what he could to smear Blair .. before, as the account says, 'miraculously' changing his mind, and his official advice.

It stinks. Even you must see that !


Anyways, the night marches on, sweet dreams Drummond, don't let the lefties bite!

It does - well after 2AM. And it'd be too much out of character for the Lefties to ever STOP biting. They've been sharpening their razor-like teeth for many decades ....

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm going to toss this in the mix and then fade away again


But we've done the "but.. but.. there were WMDs in Iraq" thing before... a few time.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29618-My-My-It-Seems-Wikileaks-Also-Show-That-All-Those-Intelligence-Agencies-Were-Right

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31220-Iraq-war-the-Intel-was-Cooked-on-purpose[/UR but to summeries again the UN and thUS crawled up Iraqs butt in 2000-2002, tagging, documenting and Completing the last bit of disarmament of Saddam's OLD munitions and facilities. The UN documented what had been destroyed--- MOST of it--- and what was old and left over TO be destroyed or removed. If your read UN inspector Blixs testimony in 2002 he documents what's Yet to be removed and mentioned some difficulty in methods to clear them finally but that they were SECURE. and not a threat.

you guys Act like it was, and is, a threat. ANY amount of bleach or Drano is "evidence" that Saddam had the level the of WMD's to justify invasion, And Claimed by the Bush Admin.

if you read the articles on the current ISIS capture they say
Quote:

<tbody>
Stockpiles of chemical munitions are still stored there. [U]The most dangerous ones have been declared to the UN and are sealed in bunkers.

Although declared, the bunkers contents have yet to be confirmed.

These areas of the compound pose a hazard to civilians and potential blackmarketers.

Numerous bunkers, including eleven cruciform shaped bunkers were exploited. Some of the bunkers were empty. Some of the bunkers contained large quantities of unfilled chemical munitions, conventional munitions, one-ton shipping containers, old disabled production equipment (presumed disabled under UNSCOM supervision), and other hazardous industrial chemicals.

17.05 The Chemical Weapons Convention, which Iraq joined in 2009, requires it to dispose of the material at Al Muthanna, even though it was declared unusable and "does not pose a significant security risk"

However, the UK government has acknowledged that the nature of the material contained in the two bunkers would make the destruction process difficult and technically challenging.

Under an agreement signed in Baghdad in July 2012, experts from the MOD’s Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) were due to provide training to Iraqi personnel in order to help them to dispose of the chemical munitions and agents....

</tbody>

But here the thing,
Bush and Friends told everyone that Saddam had
"Mobile Weapons labs..."
had "reconstituted his nuke and chemical weapons programs..."
they said they had 'An International Atomic Energy Agency report' indicated that Iraq could be as little as six months from making nuclear weapons (they didn't) ...
they said Saddam was capable of launching a chemical or biological attack in 45 minutes that could strike the UK....
Yellow cake from Africa...
aluminum tubes...
Anthrax...
1st warning a Mushroom cloud...
AAAAAHHHH!

the U.N. Inspectors and even the U.S. joint Intel report from the CIA DIA NSA etc said it ain't so.
Bush and friends later admited that it wasn't/isn't so.
so what are you guys trying to say here?

Look, if you guys don't mind the kind of lies fisherman tell, maybe you can says Bush and cronies weren't lying.
There were indeed some WMDs left over from the 80's.
And a 1/2 pound Gold fish is the same as a 300,000 pound blue whale.
It's a fish, right, that's all that matters. so it wasn't really a package of lies, it was DA TRUTH.
but OH wait , blue whales are not really fish.
hmmm but details don't matter right?

Great to see you posting again my friend!!
Sincerely mean that amigo....

However, you dare to quote anything that piece of lying scum Blix says is laughable to me. He was a paid shill for the ffing dem/lib propaganda machine my friend.
Most of the bad stuff was sent to Syria. And quite likely ole Sadim kept some lethal crap for his own use.
Too much interests in keeping misinformation alive now for the whole truth to emerge.
A great world power allied with Islam seeks to help Islam get nukes. Fact.
Everything after than means so little in the scheme of things,.
Any radical muslim government nuked up is a massive threat to America. Yet that is the goal and some top world players are riding in that boat with the stinking muzzies my friend!!-Tyr

[Drummond]

Great to see you posting again my friend!!
Sincerely mean that amigo....

However, you dare to quote anything that piece of lying scum Blix says is laughable to me. He was a paid shill for the ffing dem/lib propaganda machine my friend.
Most of the bad stuff was sent to Syria. And quite likely ole Sadim kept some lethal crap for his own use.
Too much interests in keeping misinformation alive now for the whole truth to emerge.
A great world power allied with Islam seeks to help Islam get nukes. Fact.
Everything after than means so little in the scheme of things,.
Any radical muslim government nuked up is a massive threat to America. Yet that is the goal and some top world players are riding in that boat with the stinking muzzies my friend!!-Tyr

I'm signing off momentarily, Tyr ... but I might say the same. Good to see your posts !

I want to add something about Blix. Sadly, I can't prove this with a link ... but it's instructive, all the same.

Several years ago, I remember watching a Bill O'Reilly interview with Blix, on his 'O'Reilly Factor' programme. Blix said something really telling.

On UN inspections of sites where WMD's had been destroyed ... Blix said his teams had been led to sites where it was said WMD's were destroyed. Blix's people conducted tests, and confirmed that such destructions had happened.

But, from O'Reilly's questioning, Blix had to admit his people had no way to gauge HOW MUCH had been destroyed. Blix ended up admitting that Saddam might've destroyed no more than ten percent of his stockpile.

So, even Blix showed us the case for subsequent intervention. His teams had absolutely no way of ever, finally, proving that Saddam had no WMD's left. He, his people, his whole mission .. WAS A TOTAL WASTE OF EVERYBODY'S TIME.

[jimnyc]

I'm signing off momentarily, Tyr ... but I might say the same. Good to see your posts !

I want to add something about Blix. Sadly, I can't prove this with a link ... but it's instructive, all the same.

Several years ago, I remember watching a Bill O'Reilly interview with Blix, on his 'O'Reilly Factor' programme. Blix said something really telling.

On UN inspections of sites where WMD's had been destroyed ... Blix said his teams had been led to sites where it was said WMD's were destroyed. Blix's people conducted tests, and confirmed that such destructions had happened.

But, from O'Reilly's questioning, Blix had to admit his people had no way to gauge HOW MUCH had been destroyed. Blix ended up admitting that Saddam might've destroyed no more than ten percent of his stockpile.

So, even Blix showed us the case for subsequent intervention. His teams had absolutely no way of ever, finally, proving that Saddam had no WMD's left. He, his people, his whole mission .. WAS A TOTAL WASTE OF EVERYBODY'S TIME.

Ask Blix about Iraq being in material breach for the missing hundreds of tons of chemical weapons. So many avoid the questioning and analysis around that one - and will even go as far as to claim "oh, perhaps it was destroyed and the paperwork was lost". Yeah, let's just shrug our shoulders and hope it was a mix up! Sure, Rev!!! LOL

Hell, Iraq pretty much downright ignored requests about the documented chemicals. It was tagged and then gone. And is it just a coincidence that much of it can last decades? And that it was designed so, in a manner so that it can be extended on the shelf in weaponized form? I don't think ISIS could alone know what to do, but that hardly answers what happened to them after 1998. Doesn't answer to Iraq's failure to cooperate with the UN resolutions that covered these chemicals.

Oh, and don't forget how shit was being tossed around as inspectors were lead around. Bring them to point A as things were being brought to point B, then lead them to point B as those things now go to point C or back to A.

I'm not sure I care as much anymore that others don't believe this stuff. It was a FACT back in 1998, and recorded by the very people that so many run to in trying to claim all would have been fine over there - the UN inspectors. And if they are to be believed, there was hundreds of tons of this stuff there in 1998 and gone ever since they had to leave.

[jimnyc]

An oldie but a goodie!!

---

Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has said Iraq's new declaration contains little information that had not been declared by Baghdad before 1998 when UN arms experts were last in Iraq.

The US and UK have long had concerns about what is described as unaccounted for chemical, biological and nuclear material. Their assessments were partly based on a report by the weapons inspections organisation Unscom, predecessor to Unmovic.

In early 1999, Unscom gave the Security Council its own assessment of what Iraq had destroyed and what remained unaccounted for.

The US and UK want a full explanation of what happened to the following:

360 tonnes of chemical warfare agents, including 1.5 tonnes of VX nerve agent;

3,000 tonnes of chemical precursors (which are developed into chemical weapons) including 300 tonnes uniquely used for VX.

The 1999 Unscom report said:

"According to Iraq, 1.5 tonnes of VX were discarded unilaterally by dumping on the ground. Traces of one VX-degradation product and a chemical known as a VX-stabilizer were found in the samples taken from the VX dump sites. A quantified assessment is not possible."

Biological

Britain and America want to know about:

Growth media for 20,000 litres of biological warfare agents. Any Iraqi claims that this will have degenerated will not be accepted as mustard gas found in shells in 1997 was active;

Shells for use in biological warfare - 20,000 are missing say the British, 15,000 say the Americans;

Unscom said in 1999:

"The commission has little or no confidence in Iraq's accounting for proscribed items for which physical evidence is lacking or inconclusive, documentation is sparse or nonexistent, and coherence and consistency is lacking.

These include, for example: quantities and types of munitions available for biological weapons (BW) filling; quantities and types of munitions filled with BW agents; quantities and type of bulk agents produced; quantities of bulk agents used in filling; quantities of bulk agents destroyed; quantities of growth media acquired for the programme; and quantities of growth media used/consumed.

In addition, the commission has no confidence that all bulk agents have been destroyed; that no BW munitions or weapons remain in Iraq; and that a BW capability does not still exist in Iraq."

Chemical warfare munitions

Washington and London demand disclosure on:

6,000 chemical warfare bombs.

Unscom said:

The commission has accepted the destruction of about 34,000 munitions on the basis of multiple sources, including physical evidence, documents provided by Iraq etc. However, it has not been possible to achieve a numerical accounting of destroyed munitions due to heavy bomb damage of the CW storage facilities, where these munitions had been stored during the Gulf war. The destruction of about 2,000 unfilled munitions remain uncertain, 550 filled munitions remain unaccounted for.

Other key concerns for the US and UK include the following:

Why did Iraq try to import 60,000 aluminium tubes? Rapidly spinning rotor tubes in centrifuges are used to separate weapons grade uranium, though both the British and American reports acknowledge that the tubes could be used for conventional weapons as well.

Why did it try to import other equipment, including vacuum pumps, a winding machine and special chemicals needed in gas centrifuge cascades?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2590265.stm

[jimnyc]

Dated: 2/14/2003

IRAQ COOPERATING WITH DISARMAMENT PROCEDURES, BUT MANY BANNED WEAPONSREMAIN UNACCOUNTED FOR, INSPECTORS TELL SECURITY COUNCIL

‘Immediate, Unconditional and Active’ Cooperation Needed to Resolve Questions;
France, China, Russian Federation, Germany Support Continued Inspection ProcessThe heads of the weapons inspections regime in Iraq reported to the Security Council today that procedural cooperation in the disarmament process in Iraq continued to improve in recent weeks, and to date they had found no weapons of mass destruction, but many banned weapons remained unaccounted for and that could only be resolved through Iraq’s “immediate, unconditional and active” cooperation.

The Council was meeting for the first time since United States Secretary of State Colin Powell made his case for disarming Iraq by forcelast week, presenting evidence intended to show Iraq was deceiving inspectors in its determination to obtain chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. The inspections began on
27 November and were authorized by resolution 1441, which gave Iraq “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations” dating to 1991 and the end of the Persian Gulf war.

The Executive Chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), Hans Blix, who last briefed the Council on
27 January, said more than 400 inspections at 300 sites had been conducted without notice, access was almost always provided promptly, and there was no convincing evidence that Iraq knew in advance that the inspectors were coming. The recent acceptance of aerial surveillance and interviews of scientists without witnesses, as well as appointment by Iraq of a second commission entrusted with relevant documentation search, had also been positive developments.

The outstanding questions remained, however – well known to Iraq -- concerning anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles. Iraqi documents, for example, left some 1,000 tons of chemical agents unaccounted for and the issue must be resolved either by presenting such items for elimination, or by presenting convincing evidence that they had been eliminated. As for Al-Samoud 2 and the
Al Fatah missiles, they could very well represent a prima facie case of proscribed missile systems, as they had been tested to ranges exceeding the 150-kilometre limit set by the Security Council.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7664.doc.htm

[Noir]

Convenient, that.

Nonetheless, what I've stated fits the facts perfectly.

All you needed to do to get the facts to fit perfectly was to take what someone said, and say it was a lie, no proof required.
Convenient that.




Well .. 'you did' .. supposedly. You've claimed it had a further 5 years to run !! Now, you've had to rethink that.

Here there has been a misunderstanding. The inquiry is *covering* a 10 year period. Not that the inquiry will take 10 years to conclude. Lord Falker expects the inquiry will still conclude this year, others say its more likey to be next year, given the huge delays caused by the Government not wanting documents to be released that will harm future relations with America.

[jimnyc]

Noir, just curious - what are your thoughts on the chemicals that the UN inspectors accounted for, that remained missing up till the war? Do you think the UN lied, or do you think they were in fact missing, and leaving Iraq in material breach as they refused to cooperate on that matter?

[Drummond]

An oldie but a goodie!!

---

Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has said Iraq's new declaration contains little information that had not been declared by Baghdad before 1998 when UN arms experts were last in Iraq.

The US and UK have long had concerns about what is described as unaccounted for chemical, biological and nuclear material. Their assessments were partly based on a report by the weapons inspections organisation Unscom, predecessor to Unmovic.

In early 1999, Unscom gave the Security Council its own assessment of what Iraq had destroyed and what remained unaccounted for.

The US and UK want a full explanation of what happened to the following:

360 tonnes of chemical warfare agents, including 1.5 tonnes of VX nerve agent;

3,000 tonnes of chemical precursors (which are developed into chemical weapons) including 300 tonnes uniquely used for VX.

The 1999 Unscom report said:

"According to Iraq, 1.5 tonnes of VX were discarded unilaterally by dumping on the ground. Traces of one VX-degradation product and a chemical known as a VX-stabilizer were found in the samples taken from the VX dump sites. A quantified assessment is not possible."

Biological

Britain and America want to know about:

Growth media for 20,000 litres of biological warfare agents. Any Iraqi claims that this will have degenerated will not be accepted as mustard gas found in shells in 1997 was active;

Shells for use in biological warfare - 20,000 are missing say the British, 15,000 say the Americans;

Unscom said in 1999:

"The commission has little or no confidence in Iraq's accounting for proscribed items for which physical evidence is lacking or inconclusive, documentation is sparse or nonexistent, and coherence and consistency is lacking.

These include, for example: quantities and types of munitions available for biological weapons (BW) filling; quantities and types of munitions filled with BW agents; quantities and type of bulk agents produced; quantities of bulk agents used in filling; quantities of bulk agents destroyed; quantities of growth media acquired for the programme; and quantities of growth media used/consumed.

In addition, the commission has no confidence that all bulk agents have been destroyed; that no BW munitions or weapons remain in Iraq; and that a BW capability does not still exist in Iraq."

Chemical warfare munitions

Washington and London demand disclosure on:

6,000 chemical warfare bombs.

Unscom said:

The commission has accepted the destruction of about 34,000 munitions on the basis of multiple sources, including physical evidence, documents provided by Iraq etc. However, it has not been possible to achieve a numerical accounting of destroyed munitions due to heavy bomb damage of the CW storage facilities, where these munitions had been stored during the Gulf war. The destruction of about 2,000 unfilled munitions remain uncertain, 550 filled munitions remain unaccounted for.

Other key concerns for the US and UK include the following:

Why did Iraq try to import 60,000 aluminium tubes? Rapidly spinning rotor tubes in centrifuges are used to separate weapons grade uranium, though both the British and American reports acknowledge that the tubes could be used for conventional weapons as well.

Why did it try to import other equipment, including vacuum pumps, a winding machine and special chemicals needed in gas centrifuge cascades?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2590265.stm:clap::clap::clap::clap:

[Drummond]

All you needed to do to get the facts to fit perfectly was to take what someone said, and say it was a lie, no proof required.
Convenient that.

Well, one of us is right, one of us is wrong. Media reports show how Labour people testifying to this Inquiry ... which, remember, their own Party commissioned !! ... HAVE testified. You can't get away from the fact that their testimonies back me up in what I say.


Here there has been a misunderstanding. The inquiry is *covering* a 10 year period. Not that the inquiry will take 10 years to conclude.

IF, repeat IF, there is one, then fair enough. Nonetheless, this is your wording:


The inquiry is covering a decade, and has been running for 5 years or so.
Why combine the periods in your sentence, unless they address the one item, that of the inquiry's span ?


Lord Falker expects the inquiry will still conclude this year, others say its more likey to be next year, given the huge delays caused by the Government not wanting documents to be released that will harm future relations with America.

This is far more accurate. I understand, though, that Cameron has a concern about how any further delays may dovetail the Inquiry's conclusion with the date of the next General Election in the UK. He's ready to delay it himself if he thinks that'll happen.

[fj1200]

I think you're arguing for the sake of it, FJ. My previous post stands as it is.

Noir's questioning of the operation of chemical plants at the time of the Iraq invasion was not something I really concerned myself with. It's also somewhat beside the point ... their EXISTENCE, whether operational or not, was surely the key factor ?

If dormant at the time of the invasion, still, they had the capacity to NOT be. Which in turn is just more cause to justify the invasion (... as if it was needed ..).

Here's another point -- has any authority, at any time, verifiably concluded that the whole of Iraq was searched either for WMD's, or plants capable of producing them ? If not ... who can say what might have been missed in times gone by ?

Noir contested whether the degraded weapons were WMD's. I said they were, even if nonfunctional. Noir's point was to say the opposite.

Check for yourself.

Yeah, you arguing over the inconsequential like it's some huge point over lefties real and imagined. But this thread's OP is moot as ISIS didn't find anything new.

[Gunny]

Yeah, you arguing over the inconsequential like it's some huge point over lefties real and imagined. But this thread's OP is moot as ISIS didn't find anything new.

Of course it isn't new. The WMDs exist because we sold the damned things to Saddam. When he was killing Iranians he was a folk hero. Once the government of Kuwait busted out the gold, we weren't his friend anymore. The fact remains, we sold out for cash. Let the disillusionment of Gunny begin.

But the WMDs were as real as you.

[fj1200]

Of course it isn't new. The WMDs exist because we sold the damned things to Saddam. When he was killing Iranians he was a folk hero. Once the government of Kuwait busted out the gold, we weren't his friend anymore. The fact remains, we sold out for cash. Let the disillusionment of Gunny begin.

But the WMDs were as real as you.

Nobody has disputed that he had some though some will dispute that he had some in 2003 then we can further dispute whether it was worth it.

[Drummond]

Nobody has disputed that he had some though some will dispute that he had some in 2003 then we can further dispute whether it was worth it.

Your attention span issues are getting the better of you again, FJ ....

I've already shown everyone here that degraded WMD's actually HAVE been found, post-Saddam. The only continuing 'dispute' will be from Lefties preferring their propaganda, over fact.

Are you one of them, FJ ? H'm ?

And YES, it was worth it, for two obvious reasons. One, to teach the world that totally necessary lesson that UN Resolutions, especially over something this important to world security, cannot be defied without consequences resulting.

Two .. to keep those degraded weapons out of terrorist hands. The Intelligence report announced to a Press conference in 2006 pointed out the continuing usefulness of those weapons to terrorists.

Please be more attentive in future ...

[fj1200]

Your attention span issues are getting the better of you again, FJ ....

I've already shown everyone here that degraded WMD's actually HAVE been found, post-Saddam. The only continuing 'dispute' will be from Lefties preferring their propaganda, over fact.

Are you one of them, FJ ? H'm ?

And YES, it was worth it, for two obvious reasons. One, to teach the world that totally necessary lesson that UN Resolutions, especially over something this important to world security, cannot be defied without consequences resulting.

Two .. to keep those degraded weapons out of terrorist hands. The Intelligence report announced to a Press conference in 2006 pointed out the continuing usefulness of those weapons to terrorists.

Please be more attentive in future ...

My attention span is fine. Your need to rehash what nobody really disputed was rightfully ignored. The intelligence report you keep harping about was less than impressive, I was expecting 50 pages of redacted 'gotcha' points but it was just a list of highlights, what-ifs, and might-bes. :shrug:

It would be more worth it if the world actually cared about enforcing UN resolutions but it's clear that they do not and as there has been no carryover of our "moral imperative" that would also diminish the perceived benefits. Also, there are other ways to achieve anti-terror objectives.

[red state]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by fj1200 http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=699724#post699724)
Yeah, you arguing over the inconsequential like it's some huge point over lefties real and imagined. But this thread's OP is moot as ISIS didn't find anything new.



Of course it isn't new. The WMDs exist because we sold the damned things to Saddam. When he was killing Iranians he was a folk hero. Once the government of Kuwait busted out the gold, we weren't his friend anymore. The fact remains, we sold out for cash. Let the disillusionment of Gunny begin.

But the WMDs were as real as you.

Gunny, the denialists (as B.O. calls global warming deniers) will get their panties in a wad and deny most anything if it goes against their beliefs or proves them wrong. For such folks....I say: "Calm down and just remember.....don't get excited." "Better yet....don't participate in threads that you deem MOOT any particular thread or the author of said thread. Just go away....your opinion is moot, at best, and your boorish attacks are straight out of the lil' libbie loser hand book. I didn't wish to over participate being that it is my thread but I do appreciate those who have put out some fantastic points and info and put up with the likes of the "denialists". B.O. really is stupid.....and so is his lil' libbie loser lemmings!!!!

[red state]

Your attention span issues are getting the better of you again, FJ ....

I've already shown everyone here that degraded WMD's actually HAVE been found, post-Saddam. The only continuing 'dispute' will be from Lefties preferring their propaganda, over fact.

Are you one of them, FJ ? H'm ?

And YES, it was worth it, for two obvious reasons. One, to teach the world that totally necessary lesson that UN Resolutions, especially over something this important to world security, cannot be defied without consequences resulting.

Two .. to keep those degraded weapons out of terrorist hands. The Intelligence report announced to a Press conference in 2006 pointed out the continuing usefulness of those weapons to terrorists.

Please be more attentive in future ...


Drummond, I started this thread as a simple question and with your knowledge on the subject, I'd like to ask another. How long a time frame does such weapons need to become 75% useless, 50% useless or TOTALLY useless? Could any of these long-lost weapons have been good enough to kill when Bush went in to clean up? Again, this is just a question.....I hope those with short attention spans can keep up and soak up your wealth of info. Of course, they shoot their mouth off too much (which is why they remain ignorant).

[aboutime]

Drummond, I started this thread as a simple question and with your knowledge on the subject, I'd like to ask another. How long a time frame does such weapons need to become 75% useless, 50% useless or TOTALLY useless? Could any of these long-lost weapons have been good enough to kill when Bush went in to clean up? Again, this is just a question.....I hope those with short attention spans can keep up and soak up your wealth of info. Of course, they shoot their mouth off too much (which is why they remain ignorant).


red state. Pardon my interruption here but. There's really no way to actually determine how long a life certain weapons..like Gas, Mines, and other explosives might still have. There are still forms of WMD's buried around the World from WWI, and WWII that can still pose threats to humans.

Chemical weapons, like Nuclear weapons generally remain..UNstable for their entire life. I can only tell you this based on much of the training we received during the threatened times of Operation Desert Shield, and Storm when we were constantly drilled on preventing Chemical attacks. Even at sea in the Persian Gulf. Saddam had threatened to use SCUDS, and other missiles to launch, and deliver Chemicals.
Thankfully. He never got to use them. But...the threat was there. Putting on a mask when hearing those Sirens is a scary thing I'm not afraid to admit.

[red state]

red state. Pardon my interruption here but. There's really no way to actually determine how long a life certain weapons..like Gas, Mines, and other explosives might still have. There are still forms of WMD's buried around the World from WWI, and WWII that can still pose threats to humans.

Chemical weapons, like Nuclear weapons generally remain..UNstable for their entire life. I can only tell you this based on much of the training we received during the threatened times of Operation Desert Shield, and Storm when we were constantly drilled on preventing Chemical attacks. Even at sea in the Persian Gulf. Saddam had threatened to use SCUDS, and other missiles to launch, and deliver Chemicals.
Thankfully. He never got to use them. But...the threat was there. Putting on a mask when hearing those Sirens is a scary thing I'm not afraid to admit.

Thanks, old friend, that was valuable information and much appreciated. I knew the conventional weapons from WWII were still viable but I wasn't sure about Bio and/or nukes. So, from what you're saying, you (as well as the average intelligence of the average guy....even leftists) would NOT want these weapons in their back yard......Hhhhhhhmmmmmm. That leaves me to believe that the leftist scum who put down those with proof of such weapons DID exist and are still out there, leaves them looking pretty darn stupid (or even more stupid than they usually look). Right?

[aboutime]

Thanks, old friend, that was valuable information and much appreciated. I knew the conventional weapons from WWII were still viable but I wasn't sure about Bio and/or nukes. So, from what you're saying, you (as well as the average intelligence of the average guy....even leftists) would NOT want these weapons in their back yard......Hhhhhhhmmmmmm. That leaves me to believe that the leftist scum who put down those with proof of such weapons DID exist and are still out there, leaves them looking pretty darn stupid (or even more stupid than they usually look). Right?

Thanks. You nailed that last point. We still need to remember how desperate liberal, democrats were in insisting that BUSH was just lying about the WMD's as an excuse to go after Saddam. Truth is. That hatred of, and for Bush has never gone away. Just look at how often Obama has been blaming Bush for almost every one of his LIES.

Those leftists actually were part of the group (in congress) who voted with Bush, in agreement about the WMD's. Today. They are all running scared, afraid to admit that their WITCH, Hillary, even voted for Bush to go into Iraq. She even took part as part of the SENATE ARMED FORCES committee that authorized the use of FORCE against Iraq, and Saddam. But they don't want the DUMBED-DOWN, American people who voted for Obama to Be Reminded about FACTS like that.
The only way they will ever believe in the WMD's....unfortunately, will be when SOMEONE they know, or a Family member becomes the victim of those NON EXISTENT WMD'S...now controlled by "ISIS". The people who promised to "SEE US IN NEW YORK".

[fj1200]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by fj1200 http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=699724#post699724)
Yeah, you arguing over the inconsequential like it's some huge point over lefties real and imagined. But this thread's OP is moot as ISIS didn't find anything new.


Gunny, the denialists...

Still ignoring like a punk I see. :)

[Drummond]

red state. Pardon my interruption here but. There's really no way to actually determine how long a life certain weapons..like Gas, Mines, and other explosives might still have. There are still forms of WMD's buried around the World from WWI, and WWII that can still pose threats to humans.

Chemical weapons, like Nuclear weapons generally remain..UNstable for their entire life. I can only tell you this based on much of the training we received during the threatened times of Operation Desert Shield, and Storm when we were constantly drilled on preventing Chemical attacks. Even at sea in the Persian Gulf. Saddam had threatened to use SCUDS, and other missiles to launch, and deliver Chemicals.
Thankfully. He never got to use them. But...the threat was there. Putting on a mask when hearing those Sirens is a scary thing I'm not afraid to admit.

A great answer from Aboutime, here ... many thanks.

There is no one answer. You'd have to consider the design of the weapon. How it was meant to operate. What it contains .. different contents must have differing stabilities and potencies.

In any case, even if a WMD can't be deployed as one, its contents might still be destructive enough to be useful as a less potent weapon .. say, if deployed in a confined space, like the New York Metro or the London Underground (Tube system). Or then again ... even if a weapon is nearly useless, it can still be used to threaten and paralyse city life just from the threat of what it MIGHT do.

Santorum's document made clear that your own Intelligence service was very concerned about terrorists getting these weapons, even IF badly degraded. Those captured, were taken away from terrorist hands .. just as they HAD to be.

The Iraq invasion was an absolute necessity.

[Drummond]

Still ignoring like a punk I see. :)

Still squalidly trying to gratuitously goad, I see.

Do you really find that to be a satisfactory substitute for debate ?

[Drummond]

Your need to rehash what nobody really disputed ...

Indeed ?

Didn't you post, in post #86 ....


... though some will dispute that he had some in 2003, then we can further dispute ....

I suppose it depends on how determined you are to be pedantic. You introduced the likelihood of dispute, from your own wording. FACT.


The intelligence report you keep harping about was less than impressive, I was expecting 50 pages of redacted 'gotcha' points but it was just a list of highlights, what-ifs, and might-bes.

Had your attentiveness been up to par, you would have understood that the couple of pages on offer for scrutiny were part of a much larger document .. AND .. that most of it had NOT been declassified. Perhaps you aren't 'impressed' by that. For my part, I have to conclude that failure to declassify more of it is evidence of how 'security-sensitive' their other findings must've been.

You don't find that to be at all instructive ?


It would be more worth it if the world actually cared about enforcing UN resolutions but it's clear that they do not

Not to me, it's not. However, if you're right .. then that's all the more reason to applaud your own Government, in 2003, for having the moral fortitude to do what others didn't care to do !


.. and as there has been no carryover of our "moral imperative" that would also diminish the perceived benefits.

Utter rot - and for the reason I've already explained. The lesson of being immune to consequences was one that COULD NOT be indulged in. Saddam .. and others .. had to learn that to either keep or build WMD stockpiles wasn't something that could be tolerated without restraint. All manner of nutcases could stockpile, without that lesson being taught !! So, the 'perceived benefits' were real, and considerable.

The alternative was to live in a far more dangerous world than is now true.


Also, there are other ways to achieve anti-terror objectives.

What do you suggest ? A duel of honour ... feather dusters at dawn, perhaps ??:laugh:

[aboutime]

Still squalidly trying to gratuitously goad, I see.

Do you really find that to be a satisfactory substitute for debate ?



Sir Drummond. How entertaining 'fj' is in using the typical Liberal, Idiot, Democrat, Leftist tactics of name calling.

Guess it really DOES take a Punk to feel confident enough to call someone else their equal.

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. How entertaining 'fj' is in using the typical Liberal, Idiot, Democrat, Leftist tactics of name calling.

Guess it really DOES take a Punk to feel confident enough to call someone else their equal.:clap::clap::clap:

Lefties can never concede anything .. because Left-wing propaganda will never allow it. If facts don't back them (invariably they don't ..) then other trickery has to take over. Such is the moral vacuum within which the typical Leftie has to operate ...

[aboutime]

:clap::clap::clap:

Lefties can never concede anything .. because Left-wing propaganda will never allow it. If facts don't back them (invariably they don't ..) then other trickery has to take over. Such is the moral vacuum within which the typical Leftie has to operate ...


Thanks Sir Drummond. My old line about the VACUUM between their ears seems very appropriate about now?:laugh2:

[Drummond]

Thanks Sir Drummond. My old line about the VACUUM between their ears seems very appropriate about now?:laugh2:

.. you're not wrong ! :laugh2:

[red state]

Thanks. You nailed that last point. We still need to remember how desperate liberal, democrats were in insisting that BUSH was just lying about the WMD's as an excuse to go after Saddam. Truth is. That hatred of, and for Bush has never gone away. Just look at how often Obama has been blaming Bush for almost every one of his LIES.Those leftists actually were part of the group (in congress) who voted with Bush, in agreement about the WMD's. Today. They are all running scared, afraid to admit that their WITCH, Hillary, even voted for Bush to go into Iraq. She even took part as part of the SENATE ARMED FORCES committee that authorized the use of FORCE against Iraq, and Saddam. But they don't want the DUMBED-DOWN, American people who voted for Obama to Be Reminded about FACTS like that.The only way they will ever believe in the WMD's....unfortunately, will be when SOMEONE they know, or a Family member becomes the victim of those NON EXISTENT WMD'S...now controlled by "ISIS". The people who promised to "SEE US IN NEW YORK".Well, I'm not a hater of either Bush but I can't say that I loved either of them either. In fact, I truly was sickened by the way Bush Jr carried on much of the time and with what he left us with (KEY WORD BEING left). Still, the ignorance of the left can't see the similarities between Bush and B.O. I voted for Bush Sr. once, Perot the second time around and TWICE for Bush Jr. I sometimes wish to God that Gore had beaten him sometimes so that we could have gotten all of that out of our system and could have had a REAL Conservative by now with much of this mess behind us but we can't go back and we can't hide our heads in the sand (as Iraq hid those WMD that lil' libbie loser lemmings STILL can't own up to being wrong). I will say that I'm torn between whether we should have gone to Iraq (at any point....even to aid that lil' puke country, Kuwait, who didn't appreciate it and had their boys dancing at disco's while our boys dodged bullets). All we did (inevitably) was make iSLUM stronger and made Iran more of a threat. What I am FIRM about is our need to enforce/secure the border. After 9/11, I was shocked (still am) that we have such a lax border. I'm even more surprised that we have not had a serious event because of our open border.At any rate, I truly appreciate the sound wisdom and information provided by you and Drummond. One would think that both of your comments would shut up and shut down even the most ignorant on the left but I see that the left have even more ignorance to randomly throw at logic than I realized.

[aboutime]

Well, I'm not a hater of either Bush but I can't say that I loved either of them either. In fact, I truly was sickened by the way Bush Jr carried on much of the time and with what he left us with (KEY WORD BEING left). Still, the ignorance of the left can't see the similarities between Bush and B.O. I voted for Bush Sr. once, Perot the second time around and TWICE for Bush Jr. I sometimes wish to God that Gore had beaten him sometimes so that we could have gotten all of that out of our system and could have had a REAL Conservative by now with much of this mess behind us but we can't go back and we can't hide our heads in the sand (as Iraq hid those WMD that lil' libbie loser lemmings STILL can't own up to being wrong). I will say that I'm torn between whether we should have gone to Iraq (at any point....even to aid that lil' puke country, Kuwait, who didn't appreciate it and had their boys dancing at disco's while our boys dodged bullets). All we did (inevitably) was make iSLUM stronger and made Iran more of a threat. What I am FIRM about is our need to enforce/secure the border. After 9/11, I was shocked (still am) that we have such a lax border. I'm even more surprised that we have not had a serious event because of our open border.At any rate, I truly appreciate the sound wisdom and information provided by you and Drummond. One would think that both of your comments would shut up and shut down even the most ignorant on the left but I see that the left have even more ignorance to randomly throw at logic than I realized.


Thanks for your words red state. Truth is. We need to allow those so deeply embedded from the left to keep on repeating their lies.

I keep remembering what we heard in the "GODFATHER" "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."

That's just good advice we all should remember as we sort out the LIBERAL LIES from the ACTUAL TRUTHS they avoid at all costs.

[fj1200]

Still squalidly trying to gratuitously goad, I see.

Do you really find that to be a satisfactory substitute for debate ?

Would you be referring to the idiot who says he is ignoring while at the same time quoting my posts? It seems you don't know the definitions of words you use.

[fj1200]

:clap::clap::clap:

Lefties can never concede anything .. because Left-wing propaganda will never allow it. If facts don't back them (invariably they don't ..) then other trickery has to take over. Such is the moral vacuum within which the typical Leftie has to operate ...

An idiot and a banana in your corner. You must be proud. Of course engaging in your circle jerk is much easier than admitting your continued failure of pointing out my leftie positions. ;)

[fj1200]

Indeed ?

Didn't you post, in post #86 ....

I suppose it depends on how determined you are to be pedantic. You introduced the likelihood of dispute, from your own wording. FACT.

Another of your silly FACT protestations, I'm assuming TRUTH will be following that one up. :rolleyes: Of course you do know that that word was used twice under different contexts don't you? Nah, probably not so to clear up the first was in reference to your insistence on putting words in the mouths of posters based on your imagination and desire to "get" those lefties, real and imagined. ;) The second was a response to gunny and "some" do like to dispute whether he had WMDs in '03 along with those who dispute whether or not they were a threat. Please try and keep up.


Had your attentiveness been up to par, you would have understood that the couple of pages on offer for scrutiny were part of a much larger document .. AND .. that most of it had NOT been declassified. Perhaps you aren't 'impressed' by that. For my part, I have to conclude that failure to declassify more of it is evidence of how 'security-sensitive' their other findings must've been.

You don't find that to be at all instructive ?

It was an executive summary and didn't live up to your hype.


Not to me, it's not. However, if you're right .. then that's all the more reason to applaud your own Government, in 2003, for having the moral fortitude to do what others didn't care to do !

And where has that moral fortitude gotten us? Of course to truly answer that question you'd have to ask what if and you don't seem to be capable of thinking beyond smokin' a few muzzies baddies.


Utter rot - and for the reason I've already explained. The lesson of being immune to consequences was one that COULD NOT be indulged in. Saddam .. and others .. had to learn that to either keep or build WMD stockpiles wasn't something that could be tolerated without restraint. All manner of nutcases could stockpile, without that lesson being taught !! So, the 'perceived benefits' were real, and considerable.

The alternative was to live in a far more dangerous world than is now true.

I'm sorry, you think the world is MORE safe than before??? I suggest you read the news.


What do you suggest ? A duel of honour ... feather dusters at dawn, perhaps ??:laugh:

We could present you in a battle of wits... Of course we'd all be dead by sundown with your "skills."

[Gunny]

Nobody has disputed that he had some though some will dispute that he had some in 2003 then we can further dispute whether it was worth it.

Until google and wiki decided to be letwingnutmorons, you could link to the fact the CIA gave him the crap as dual-use materiel, then taught his peeps how to refine it.

You going to go all over the page here, or discuss A topic. I don't agree with being there. They wouldn't let us win. Why engage in combat for any other reason?

[Drummond]

Another of your silly FACT protestations, I'm assuming TRUTH will be following that one up. :rolleyes: Of course you do know that that word was used twice under different contexts don't you? Nah, probably not so to clear up the first was in reference to your insistence on putting words in the mouths of posters based on your imagination and desire to "get" those lefties, real and imagined. ;) The second was a response to gunny and "some" do like to dispute whether he had WMDs in '03 along with those who dispute whether or not they were a threat. Please try and keep up.

Tiresome.

Let's cut to the chase, shall we .. and aim for a bit of clarity ?

Do YOU accept that Saddam had WMD's in 2003, yes or no ? The state of them comes close to being immaterial ... if usable as weapons, then they'd need to be kept out of harm's way.


It was an executive summary and didn't live up to your hype.

What 'hype' is that ?

My concern is for the truth (... and not Leftie preference). The facts are clear. No matter how much of a 'summary' it was, Santorum's release of that declassified material knocks any claim of 'no WMD's', and 'no need to invade Iraq' right into cloud cuckooland.

You know it, so try admitting it.

Free yourself from Leftie propaganda just long enough to give truth an airing. I dare you.


And where has that moral fortitude gotten us? Of course to truly answer that question you'd have to ask what if and you don't seem to be capable of thinking beyond smokin' a few muzzies baddies.

Tactical jibes are back - again - I see. How sad.

I've answered you already (perhaps you need to take notes ?). A tyrant who thought he could face down the UN and remain unaccountable to anybody, was proven wrong, in such a way that other Saddam wannabees were forced to learn a lesson from it. What we do NOT see today is a plethora of tinpot dictators / nutters sitting on great piles of WMD's, doing dodgy deals with terrorists.

2003 saved the world from such a tinderbox outcome.


I'm sorry, you think the world is MORE safe than before??? I suggest you read the news.

Answered above. YES.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You going to go all over the page here, or discuss A topic. I don't agree with being there. They wouldn't let us win. Why engage in combat for any other reason?


You going to go all over the page here, or discuss A topic.


Good luck in getting a straight answer to that question. -Tyr

[fj1200]

Until google and wiki decided to be letwingnutmorons, you could link to the fact the CIA gave him the crap as dual-use materiel, then taught his peeps how to refine it.

You going to go all over the page here, or discuss A topic. I don't agree with being there. They wouldn't let us win. Why engage in combat for any other reason?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Of course he had some. And I do find it quite comical in a paragraph where you ask if I'm going to be all over the page or discuss A topic you tangent over Iraq. :confused:


Good luck in getting a straight answer to that question. -Tyr

It's tough dealing with someone's ignorant imagination. ;)

[fj1200]

Tiresome.

Let's cut to the chase, shall we .. and aim for a bit of clarity ?

Do YOU accept that Saddam had WMD's in 2003, yes or no ? The state of them comes close to being immaterial ... if usable as weapons, then they'd need to be kept out of harm's way.

Tiresome, yes. Your imagination isn't very good at this. Of course he had stuff in 2003, an unclassified overview says so. But of course the state of them is material; there's a difference between something that can be fired tomorrow and something that's not of any use to anyone.


What 'hype' is that ?

My concern is for the truth (... and not Leftie preference). The facts are clear. No matter how much of a 'summary' it was, Santorum's release of that declassified material knocks any claim of 'no WMD's', and 'no need to invade Iraq' right into cloud cuckooland.

You know it, so try admitting it.

Free yourself from Leftie propaganda just long enough to give truth an airing. I dare you.

As soon as you free yourself from your imagination we might be able to get somewhere. As far as the unclassified overview there is one bit of fact; recovering ~500 munitions. The second point is speculation and the remaining points are ifs based on the second point. But again your jumping to conclusions that you have justified in your head that yes, there were some so of course we had to invade.


Tactical jibes are back - again - I see. How sad.

I've answered you already (perhaps you need to take notes ?). A tyrant who thought he could face down the UN and remain unaccountable to anybody, was proven wrong, in such a way that other Saddam wannabees were forced to learn a lesson from it. What we do NOT see today is a plethora of tinpot dictators / nutters sitting on great piles of WMD's, doing dodgy deals with terrorists.

2003 saved the world from such a tinderbox outcome.

You say tactical jibe I say accurately portraying ignorance... potato, po-ta-toe. Your worldview is very limiting and to quote someone; you don't know what you don't know. But I do know there are plenty of tinpot dictators the world over doing dodgy deals with terrorists. What we did in Iraq wasn't the only option and precluded any other.


Answered above. YES.

You should try checking the news again.

[Gunny]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Of course he had some. And I do find it quite comical in a paragraph where you ask if I'm going to be all over the page or discuss A topic you tangent over Iraq. :confused:



It's tough dealing with someone's ignorant imagination. ;)

Yes, it is, as a matter of fact.

Now, go look at the thread title. Where is ISIS? Last I checked, in Iraq. The thread title also addresses WMD's. I'm addressing both ISIS and WMDs. SO get your calculator and your little slide rule out and tell me where I am the one that's wrong?

I'm "in your face", addressing your posts. You, on the other hand, are a freakin' moth. All over the place with no general direction. But that's your game, correct? You don't have to stand still and debate with someone if you're making them chase you.

Now, you want to discuss the topic, or what?

[fj1200]

Yes, it is, as a matter of fact.

Now, go look at the thread title. Where is ISIS? Last I checked, in Iraq. The thread title also addresses WMD's. I'm addressing both ISIS and WMDs. SO get your calculator and your little slide rule out and tell me where I am the one that's wrong?

I'm "in your face", addressing your posts. You, on the other hand, are a freakin' moth. All over the place with no general direction. But that's your game, correct? You don't have to stand still and debate with someone if you're making them chase you.

Now, you want to discuss the topic, or what?

I addressed the topic ages ago. Did you miss this one?


Of course this isn't really a new validation of Bush since we've known about it for years.


Britain has previously acknowledgeded that the nature of the material contained in the two bunkers would make the destruction process difficult and technically challenging.Under an agreement signed in Baghdad in July 2012, experts from the MOD’s Defence Science and Technology Laboratory were due to provide training to Iraqi personnel in order to help them to dispose of the chemical munitions and agents.
Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons during the Iran – Iraq War (1980 to 1988) and against the Kurds in Halabja in 1988.
One US official told the Wall Street Journal yesterday that Isis fighters could be contaminated by the chemicals at the site.
“The only people who would likely be harmed by these chemical materials would be the people who tried to use or move them,” the military officer said.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10913275/Isis-storms-Saddam-era-chemical-weapons-complex-in-Iraq.html

And FWIW, I would love to stay on topic but I have to deal with knuckleheads who can't get out of the way of their own imaginations. So the thread; where is ISIS? Iraq and Syria. What did they find? Some stuff we knew about. That's pretty much the extent of the thread title. I was recently told that threads evolve, does that include this one?