Further proof of Iraqi WMD's

[Drummond]

For anyone (and it amazes me that there are still so many of you out there !) who insist that Iraqi WMD's didn't exist ... I invite you to study this latest revelation, courtesy of the New York Times (the BBC's website features it !!) ...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

High time, SURELY, that the doubters / deniers finally conceded the truth of this ?

The Iraq invasion of 2003 was necessary, and RIGHT --- this is clear and provable FACT !!!!

[DLT]

For anyone (and it amazes me that there are still so many of you out there !) who insist that Iraqi WMD's didn't exist ... I invite you to study this latest revelation, courtesy of the New York Times (the BBC's website features it !!) ...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

High time, SURELY, that the doubters / deniers finally conceded the truth of this ?

The Iraq invasion of 2003 was necessary, and RIGHT --- this is clear and provable FACT !!!!

The Iraqi WMDs deniers are morons. Even their beloved DemocRats all, in unison, agreed that Saddam did indeed possess WMDs. Of course, that was during Clinton's presidency and it was A-OK to be a warmongering hawk then, as long as you had that "D" beside your name. When Bush won the WH, all that changed, of course.

Leftie lies & double-standards....the only standards they've ever had or ever will have.

[fj1200]

For anyone (and it amazes me that there are still so many of you out there !) who insist that Iraqi WMD's didn't exist ... I invite you to study this latest revelation, courtesy of the New York Times (the BBC's website features it !!) ...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

High time, SURELY, that the doubters / deniers finally conceded the truth of this ?

The Iraq invasion of 2003 was necessary, and RIGHT --- this is clear and provable FACT !!!!

Fallacy #1: Who are those people?
Fallacy #2. That's not fact, it's opinion.


...
The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.
...
The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale.
After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bush insisted that Mr. Hussein was hiding an active weapons of mass destruction program, in defiance of international will and at the world’s risk. United Nations inspectors said they could not find evidence for these claims.
Then, during the long occupation, American troops began encountering old chemical munitions in hidden caches and roadside bombs. Typically 155-millimeter artillery shells or 122-millimeter rockets, they were remnants of an arms program Iraq had rushed into production in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war.
All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.
In case after case, participants said, analysis of these warheads and shells reaffirmed intelligence failures. First, the American government did not find what it had been looking for at the war’s outset, then it failed to prepare its troops and medical corps for the aged weapons it did find.
...

[Drummond]

Fallacy #1: Who are those people?

Hilarious.

You're denying their existence, FJ ? Because NOBODY here is going to believe they don't exist !!!!


Fallacy #2. That's not fact, it's opinion.

One can have the OPINION that world security doesn't matter. The OPINION that Saddam should have been free to defy all the UN Resolutions he ever wanted to. And/or to do all the dodgy deals he could ever want to do, with whatever terrorists he wanted to deal with. That tinpot nutters should've been free to infer the utter toothlessness of the UN, and stockpile whatever WMD stocks they wanted. That the world SHOULD be a far more dangerous place than it is today.

And, yes. Freedom to allow any and all criminality in the world .... people are free to hold the OPINION that all of this is entirely permissible. [Never mind laws, order, decency ..]

But, tell me. Who else but a LEFTIE would ever think in this way ???? That such OPINIONS should exist as such, hold sway over anybody, and found to be acceptable ones to indulge ?

So yes, I see your point - and, indeed, your thinking. Which, once again, says volumes, doesn't it FJ ....

.... What a giveaway .....

[Drummond]

The Iraqi WMDs deniers are morons. Even their beloved DemocRats all, in unison, agreed that Saddam did indeed possess WMDs. Of course, that was during Clinton's presidency and it was A-OK to be a warmongering hawk then, as long as you had that "D" beside your name. When Bush won the WH, all that changed, of course.

Leftie lies & double-standards....the only standards they've ever had or ever will have.

Well said ...couldn't agree more !!

[gabosaurus]

The WMDs were left over from Desert Storm. And they were WMDs and the U.S. sent to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war.

Do you want to know where the seeds for Isis and other militant Islamic factions came from? The religious power vacuum left over from the Bush War.
Dubya was so intent on getting rid of the man who insulted and threatened his daddy that he never thought about the implications.
So we have Reagan's stupidity in arming Iraq and Dubya's stupidity in invading a sovereign nation that was much less moderate that what we have today.
As we see now, Iraq is not suited for democracy. The people don't want to fend for themselves. It's our own stupidity that got us into this mess. And it's our own stupidity that keeps us from solving it.

[Jeff]

The WMDs were left over from Desert Storm. And they were WMDs and the U.S. sent to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war.

Do you want to know where the seeds for Isis and other militant Islamic factions came from? The religious power vacuum left over from the Bush War.
Dubya was so intent on getting rid of the man who insulted and threatened his daddy that he never thought about the implications.
So we have Reagan's stupidity in arming Iraq and Dubya's stupidity in invading a sovereign nation that was much less moderate that what we have today.
As we see now, Iraq is not suited for democracy. The people don't want to fend for themselves. It's our own stupidity that got us into this mess. And it's our own stupidity that keeps us from solving it.

I agree totally with the highlighted part, yes we know he had WMD because we gave them to him, that and the fact that he used them against his own people was all the evidence I needed . But even though you know they had them it was still about Daddy :rolleyes: OK then.

[gabosaurus]

I agree totally with the highlighted part, yes we know he had WMD because we gave them to him, that and the fact that he used them against his own people was all the evidence I needed . But even though you know they had them it was still about Daddy :rolleyes: OK then.

As opposed to what Isis and other militant factions are doing now. And have been doing for the last decade or so.

[fj1200]

Hilarious.

You're denying their existence, FJ ? Because NOBODY here is going to believe they don't exist !!!!

What is actually hilarious is your attempt to create some sort of strawman to argue against.


One can have the OPINION that world security doesn't matter. The OPINION that Saddam should have been free to defy all the UN Resolutions he ever wanted to. And/or to do all the dodgy deals he could ever want to do, with whatever terrorists he wanted to deal with. That tinpot nutters should've been free to infer the utter toothlessness of the UN, and stockpile whatever WMD stocks they wanted. That the world SHOULD be a far more dangerous place than it is today.

And, yes. Freedom to allow any and all criminality in the world .... people are free to hold the OPINION that all of this is entirely permissible. [Never mind laws, order, decency ..]

But, tell me. Who else but a LEFTIE would ever think in this way ???? That such OPINIONS should exist as such, hold sway over anybody, and found to be acceptable ones to indulge ?

So yes, I see your point - and, indeed, your thinking. Which, once again, says volumes, doesn't it FJ ....

.... What a giveaway .....

More hilarity is your attempt to maintain a fact when it is merely opinion. Of course when it's shown that your link disagrees with your premise you do all you can to avoid your own OP.


The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale.

You also need to believe the myth that ISIS is a better outcome than having a contained Saddam rattling about.

[Drummond]

The WMDs were left over from Desert Storm. And they were WMDs and the U.S. sent to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war.

Do you want to know where the seeds for Isis and other militant Islamic factions came from? The religious power vacuum left over from the Bush War.
Dubya was so intent on getting rid of the man who insulted and threatened his daddy that he never thought about the implications.
So we have Reagan's stupidity in arming Iraq and Dubya's stupidity in invading a sovereign nation that was much less moderate that what we have today.
As we see now, Iraq is not suited for democracy. The people don't want to fend for themselves. It's our own stupidity that got us into this mess. And it's our own stupidity that keeps us from solving it.

Summarising-

1. Despite the UN's requirement that Saddam account for ANY and ALL WMD's ... older ones shouldn't matter .. ?

2. Saddam's tyranny, his fondness for supporting terrorists, this made him a leader deserving of leaving alone ?

3. YOU think democracy isn't for Iraqis !! How condescending of you. There are millions of them who risked their lives to vote, during their first election. But ... what they want, what they risked, isn't of any consequence .. because YOU say so ???

4. Iraq is now SUBJECT to a new tyranny, from ISIS. And, for why ? BECAUSE OBAMA SET UP THE CONDITIONS THAT ALLOWED IT.

Your Leftieness is showing. But, I agree. It's Obama's stupidity which facilitated the current mess. He should, indeed, clean up after himself (no doubt costing American lives in the process, all of those souls needlessly put in harm's way through Leftie dogmatic STUPIDITY).

That's what you get for voting Leftie, Gabby ...

[revelarts]

let me get my cracks in 1st then get serious later.

1st of all the NewYork times is a left wing rag that no self respecting conservative should ever EVAH take seriously. It has NO truth if it is written there. It's worse than the guardian Pravda and the village voice.
therefore I stand by George W. Bushes gospel truth since he's never uttered an intentional flasehood much less ever lied. And is more honest than George Washington and Abraham Lincoln put together.
"...we didn't find WMDs of significances in Iraq..." "...We had bad intel..."

so the OBVIOUSLY the NewYork Times is LYING!
the source is the ONLY thing that matters here.
IF your left wing you believe the NYTimes, if your Conservative you'll believe the president, GW Bush :salute:.
i can rest my case at this point. Only idiots, doubters, stupid people and LEFTIES can deny my perfect logic here.

NYTIMES = left wing news = ALL Lies
W Bush = Right wing REALITY = ALL Truth

W Bush has admitted several times. we didn't find the WMD's .
He has source the NY Times doesn't have so, there ya go.
Unless you want to call BUSH a LIAR?!?!

..............

[Drummond]

What is actually hilarious is your attempt to create some sort of strawman to argue against.

You made a poor point. This is your evasion to cover for that.


More hilarity is your attempt to maintain a fact when it is merely opinion. Of course when it's shown that your link disagrees with your premise you do all you can to avoid your own OP.

More of the same.

You can take opinion only so far, before you get to the point where to indulge it in those terms is counterproductive and nonsensical. I have shown you this. That you evade this lesson is your own failing.


You also need to believe the myth that ISIS is a better outcome than having a contained Saddam rattling about.

NOT agreed. ISIS is a diabolical 'outcome'. We have your pal OBAMA to thank for their having emerged to be what they are.

[Don't forget to find a way of leaping to his defence, somewhere in this thread ...]

[revelarts]

2nd..
and more seriously

How is it that you guys knew that there were weapons when the senate, the President, the Joint Chiefs, and inspectors didn't? After I've been told by several people that ALL those secret munitions went to Syria!!!

so what gives fella do the Syrians have them or what?
get your stories strait.

this article makes clear that the only people who knew were a few on the ground. and certain in the army upper echelons.
the other thing the article makes clear is that these were OLD PRE-1991 weapons not New as Bush Blair and claimed.
Old and MADE BY AMERICA and American Companies no less.

Our troops are getting sick from American made weapons sold to an former Ally.

[revelarts]

From the article:

"troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West."

"Participants in the chemical weapons discoveries said the United States suppressed knowledge of finds for multiple reasons, including that the government bristled at further acknowledgment it had been wrong. “They needed something to say that after Sept. 11 Saddam used chemical rounds,” Mr. Lampier said. “And all of this was from the pre-1991 era.”"


what did bush, Cheney, Rummy, Blair etc put before the public.

"He has RECONSTITUTED his Biological and Chemical weapons programs....
...the 1st warning a mushroom cloud...
...He

from the article:
"...Others pointed to another embarrassment. In five of six incidents in which troops were wounded by chemical agents, the munitions appeared to have been designed in the United States, manufactured in Europe and filled in chemical agent production lines built in Iraq by Western companies...."


"....Iraq produced 10 metric tons of mustard blister agent in 1981; by 1987 its production had grown 90-fold, with late-war output aided by two American companies that provided hundreds of tons of thiodiglycol, a mustard agent precursor. Production of nerve agents also took off...."

"....
...the American Army made its largest chemical weapons find of the war: more than 2,400 Borak rockets....
... The rockets appeared to have been buried before American airstrikes in 1991, he said. Many were empty. Others still contained sarin. “Full-up sloshers,” he said....
...These shells, which the American military calls M110s, had been developed decades ago in the United States. Roughly two feet long and weighing more than 90 pounds, each is an aerodynamic steel vessel with a burster tube in its center.
The United States has long manufactured M110s, filling them with smoke compounds, white phosphorus or, in earlier years, mustard agent. American ordnance documents explicitly describe the purpose of an M110 filled with blister agent: “to produce a toxic effect on personnel and to contaminate habitable areas.”....

America producing the best enemies money can buy.

[fj1200]

You made a poor point. This is your evasion to cover for that.

More of the same.

You can take opinion only so far, before you get to the point where to indulge it in those terms is counterproductive and nonsensical. I have shown you this. That you evade this lesson is your own failing.

NOT agreed. ISIS is a diabolical 'outcome'. We have your pal OBAMA to thank for their having emerged to be what they are.

[Don't forget to find a way of leaping to his defence, somewhere in this thread ...]

You haven't refuted the point that you were trying to win cheap points with a strawman. And you haven't shown anything; your own article disagrees with your premise, I even copied the relevant portions for you.

But of course you won't agree, to do so would show the flaw in your argument. Now you are making another unprovable assertion on top of the original one; you have to claim that ISIS is BO's fault.

"My pal BO." :rolleyes: When you have nothing to begin with double down on the ridiculous. And for the reading comprehension challenged: BO sucks.

[fj1200]

From the article:

No fair rev, how dare you source a leftie rag like the NY Times... oh wait.

[Drummond]

let me get my cracks in 1st then get serious later.

1st of all the NewYork times is a left wing rag that no self respecting conservative should ever EVAH take seriously. It has NO truth if it is written there. It's worse than the guardian Pravda and the village voice.
therefore I stand by George W. Bushes gospel truth since he's never uttered an intentional flasehood much less ever lied. And is more honest than George Washington and Abraham Lincoln put together.
"...we didn't find WMDs of significances in Iraq..." "...We had bad intel..."

so the OBVIOUSLY the NewYork Times is LYING!
the source is the ONLY thing that matters here.
IF your left wing you believe the NYTimes, if your Conservative you'll believe the president, GW Bush :salute:.
i can rest my case at this point. Only idiots, doubters, stupid people and LEFTIES can deny my perfect logic here.

NYTIMES = left wing news = ALL Lies
W Bush = Right wing REALITY = ALL Truth

W Bush has admitted several times. we didn't find the WMD's .
He has source the NY Times doesn't have so, there ya go.
Unless you want to call BUSH a LIAR?!?!

..............

Your rejection of Leftie-sourced material is heartwarming !! I congratulate you. No doubt at some future time I will remind you of this, when you produce your next list of Leftie-sourced conspiracy theories !

But there's one whopping great flaw in all of this. And you should know what it is already ....

RICK SANTORUM FIRST DISSEMINATED THE REVELATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF WMD'S SUCH AS THIS, EIGHT YEARS AGO .... from A US INTELLIGENCE DOCUMENT !!

And tell me -- is Santorum a Leftie, or not ?

[DLT]

The WMDs were left over from Desert Storm. And they were WMDs and the U.S. sent to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war.

Do you want to know where the seeds for Isis and other militant Islamic factions came from? The religious power vacuum left over from the Bush War.
Dubya was so intent on getting rid of the man who insulted and threatened his daddy that he never thought about the implications.
So we have Reagan's stupidity in arming Iraq and Dubya's stupidity in invading a sovereign nation that was much less moderate that what we have today.
As we see now, Iraq is not suited for democracy. The people don't want to fend for themselves. It's our own stupidity that got us into this mess. And it's our own stupidity that keeps us from solving it.

Wrong. Any such weapons would have already been declared and destroyed .....since we 'supposedly' had given them to Saddam. The WMDs found since then were not American-made or American-supplied. In fact, other nations (like Russia) were supplying Saddam and helping him hide said weapons.

I still want to know what was being transported in that miles-long caravan of 18-wheeler trucks going from Baghdad to Syria three months before we went into Iraq. What was so important that it needed to be trucked OUT of the country? What kind of stockpile did he have that required the help of the Russians to dispose of? What did Saddam not want found and confiscated? And as usual, Syria was in the thick of all things "anti-America" related.

[fj1200]

RICK SANTORUM FIRST DISSEMINATED THE REVELATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF WMD'S SUCH AS THIS, EIGHT YEARS AGO .... from A US INTELLIGENCE DOCUMENT !!

Aw geez, not this again.

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

It doesn't really say what you think it says.

[aboutime]

Hilarious.

You're denying their existence, FJ ? Because NOBODY here is going to believe they don't exist !!!!



One can have the OPINION that world security doesn't matter. The OPINION that Saddam should have been free to defy all the UN Resolutions he ever wanted to. And/or to do all the dodgy deals he could ever want to do, with whatever terrorists he wanted to deal with. That tinpot nutters should've been free to infer the utter toothlessness of the UN, and stockpile whatever WMD stocks they wanted. That the world SHOULD be a far more dangerous place than it is today.

And, yes. Freedom to allow any and all criminality in the world .... people are free to hold the OPINION that all of this is entirely permissible. [Never mind laws, order, decency ..]

But, tell me. Who else but a LEFTIE would ever think in this way ???? That such OPINIONS should exist as such, hold sway over anybody, and found to be acceptable ones to indulge ?

So yes, I see your point - and, indeed, your thinking. Which, once again, says volumes, doesn't it FJ ....

.... What a giveaway .....



Sir Drummond. In a nutshell. Those who are still spewing the typical, liberally generated, fabrications about almost everything related to Bush, calling him a liar, and war criminal are nothing but prime examples of the definition of how effective the DNC LYING MACHINE...often referred to as the DNC PLAYBOOK, really is.
So, their only defense in repeating the constantly repeated liberal hatred and lies is the definition of INSANITY. Pure and simple.
They have become so accustomed to REPEATING their lies. They Honestly do believe the lies work every time they repeat them.
Unfortunately. Only Democrat, Liberal, Leftist, Progressives are the only people who must be reminded to TELL THE LIES.
That's how they work. And none of them are intelligent enough to recognize, no matter how many times they try it. The same results always occur. LIES.

[fj1200]

Wrong. Any such weapons would have already been declared and destroyed .....since we 'supposedly' had given them to Saddam. The WMDs found since then were not American-made or American-supplied. In fact, other nations (like Russia) were supplying Saddam and helping him hide said weapons.

The link of the day seems to disagree with you:


Others pointed to another embarrassment. In five of six incidents in which troops were wounded by chemical agents, the munitions appeared to have been designed in the United States, manufactured in Europe and filled in chemical agent production lines built in Iraq by Western companies.

[revelarts]

Your rejection of Leftie-sourced material is heartwarming !! I congratulate you. No doubt at some future time I will remind you of this, when you produce your next list of Leftie-sourced conspiracy theories !

But there's one whopping great flaw in all of this. And you should know what it is already ....

RICK SANTORUM FIRST DISSEMINATED THE REVELATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF WMD'S SUCH AS THIS, EIGHT YEARS AGO .... from A US INTELLIGENCE DOCUMENT !!

And tell me -- is Santorum a Leftie, or not ?

Santorum? Santourm only spoke of apx 500 old burnt out cans in that report.

This LEFTIST lying fish wrapper the NY-Leftist-Times is talking about apx 3000 US made warheads. It can ONLY be Complete lies from a lying lair newspaper trying to discredited W Bush's Honest admin. Leftist paper only print lies. this is what you told me before. NOTHING in them can be trusted ever.

and Bush said
"we didn't find WMDs"
Why are you bringing into question the word of GW BUSH here Drummond?!!
Why are you quoteing a leftist rag as "fact" here?!!
If i didn't know better I'd say you'd Gone LEFTIE!!!

[fj1200]

If i didn't know better I'd say you'd Gone LEFTIE!!!

Gone leftie? :scared:

[Gunny]

For anyone (and it amazes me that there are still so many of you out there !) who insist that Iraqi WMD's didn't exist ... I invite you to study this latest revelation, courtesy of the New York Times (the BBC's website features it !!) ...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

High time, SURELY, that the doubters / deniers finally conceded the truth of this ?

The Iraq invasion of 2003 was necessary, and RIGHT --- this is clear and provable FACT !!!!

The WMDs existed. We sold them to Saddam. The CIA taught Iraq how to make them.

The invasion of Iraq was however, unnecessary and strategically wrong. The mess going on over there RIGHT NOW? Is EXACTLY what military planners have said would happen since 1991, at least.

That's not saying Saddam was a good guy. He was a POS. He was however a strategically necessary POS.

[Gunny]

Wrong. Any such weapons would have already been declared and destroyed .....since we 'supposedly' had given them to Saddam. The WMDs found since then were not American-made or American-supplied. In fact, other nations (like Russia) were supplying Saddam and helping him hide said weapons.

I still want to know what was being transported in that miles-long caravan of 18-wheeler trucks going from Baghdad to Syria three months before we went into Iraq. What was so important that it needed to be trucked OUT of the country? What kind of stockpile did he have that required the help of the Russians to dispose of? What did Saddam not want found and confiscated? And as usual, Syria was in the thick of all things "anti-America" related.

There is no "supposedly". There WAS a good link at one time until google decided to join the Dem party. We sold Saddam "dual-use" materiel; which, means it can be sold called one thing but used for another. The CIA taught Saddam's chemists how to refine the chemicals.

Saddam took whatever anyone was giving him. We supported him against Iran because of the Iranian Hostage Crisis, and the USSR supported Saddam against Iran because Iran supported the muhajadeen against the USSR in Afghanistan. The USSR however, supplied Saddam with conventional weapons. IIRC, his fighters were French.

Everybody's hands were dirty.

[Drummond]

Aw geez, not this again.

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

It doesn't really say what you think it says.

Really ?

Well, don't be coy ! What do YOU think it says ?

I look forward to being entertained by your Leftie reinterpretation of the obvious ...

[Drummond]

There is no "supposedly". There WAS a good link at one time until google decided to join the Dem party. We sold Saddam "dual-use" materiel; which, means it can be sold called one thing but used for another. The CIA taught Saddam's chemists how to refine the chemicals.

Saddam took whatever anyone was giving him. We supported him against Iran because of the Iranian Hostage Crisis, and the USSR supported Saddam against Iran because Iran supported the muhajadeen against the USSR in Afghanistan. The USSR however, supplied Saddam with conventional weapons. IIRC, his fighters were French.

Everybody's hands were dirty.

Everybody's hands were dirty. I daresay that's a fair point.

But at least, GWB acted to correct matters. And he did so, in defence of a UN Resolution which Saddam had defied.

The existence of any WMD's in Iraq, regardless of condition, proved conclusively the correctness of the action to invade Iraq and resolve the issue.

And consider DLT's point. There was certainly reason to believe that Saddam transferred WMD weaponry to Syria .. and we now know that Syria had its stock of WMD's. Was their origin ever proved to NOT be from Iraq, either partially or wholly ?

[Gunny]

Everybody's hands were dirty. I daresay that's a fair point.

But at least, GWB acted to correct matters. And he did so, in defence of a UN Resolution which Saddam had defied.

The existence of any WMD's in Iraq, regardless of condition, proved conclusively the correctness of the action to invade Iraq and resolve the issue.

And consider DLT's point. There was certainly reason to believe that Saddam transferred WMD weaponry to Syria .. and we now know that Syria had its stock of WMD's. Was their origin ever proved to NOT be from Iraq, either partially or wholly ?

Again, I disagree. GWB acted emotionally and turned the ME into a power vacuum, and a proxy war between the sunni and shia. His father knew that. THAT is the main reason we didn't go into Iraq in 91. There were other political considerations, but the fact remains, the result is what was predicted 20+ years ago.

It was strategically the wrong thing to do. Now WE are embroiled in their never-ending war which WE precipitated. There is no winning anything there. No one in the Western world is going to go in WWII style, obliterate everything, then make them put the pieces back together as we say. Hasn't happened SINCE WWII. Since THAT is the reality of it, Iraq was better left alone and contained.

[Drummond]

Santorum? Santourm only spoke of apx 500 old burnt out cans in that report.

This LEFTIST lying fish wrapper the NY-Leftist-Times is talking about apx 3000 US made warheads. It can ONLY be Complete lies from a lying lair newspaper trying to discredited W Bush's Honest admin. Leftist paper only print lies. this is what you told me before. NOTHING in them can be trusted ever.

and Bush said
"we didn't find WMDs"
Why are you bringing into question the word of GW BUSH here Drummond?!!
Why are you quoteing a leftist rag as "fact" here?!!
If i didn't know better I'd say you'd Gone LEFTIE!!!
Revelarts. Your spirit does you proud ! That you'd take any / all Leftie sources as automatically untrue, speaks of magnificent progress. Very well done !! :clap:

But here's the thing. Leftieism suggests disreputability. Of course it does. But, EVEN a Leftie source is CAPABLE of truth. You may not see such a phenomenon very often. But, it has been known to happen.

Yes, really.

And consider that it's taken this Leftie source EIGHT YEARS to come anywhere near clean on this issue. Heyy ... sounds Leftie to me !!

As for GWB, he was a politician, operating in an environment where only one version of perceived truth would ever be widely accepted. Being a politician, he'd hardly commit political suicide, would he ?

For shame on the Left, for creating such an environment for him.

Anyway back to the present. Between Santorum's revelation of 2006, and the NY Times coming 'clean' a whole EIGHT YEARS LATER, I'd say that the 'Iraqi WMD's don't exist' line is well and truly dead.

.. whoops ....

[Drummond]

Again, I disagree. GWB acted emotionally and turned the ME into a power vacuum, and a proxy war between the sunni and shia. His father knew that. THAT is the main reason we didn't go into Iraq in 91. There were other political considerations, but the fact remains, the result is what was predicted 20+ years ago.

It was strategically the wrong thing to do. Now WE are embroiled in their never-ending war which WE precipitated. There is no winning anything there. No one in the Western world is going to go in WWII style, obliterate everything, then make them put the pieces back together as we say. Hasn't happened SINCE WWII. Since THAT is the reality of it, Iraq was better left alone and contained.

GWB did what he had to do on the WMD issue. There can be no question about that. The invasion in 2003 was an absolute necessity, and the case has been amply put on that score.

GWB did not make sufficient provision for the aftermath, however, and I daresay that the insurgent rush to take on American and Coalition forces wasn't properly forseen and planned for. That said, at least GWB had the decency to keep forces stationed there. Contrast that with Obama and his enthusiasm for getting American forces OUT, and EVEN to declare to the world, years in advance (!!) exactly what his plans were on that score.

Truly incredible.

But give GWB his due. A fledgling democracy was created in Iraq on his watch. Did it operate smoothly ? Of course not. But it was still a better thing for Iraq than Saddam's despotism, his warfare adventurism, his association with terrorists, his creation of mass graves, his gassing of the Kurds (yes, with a WMD !) and his regime's rape rooms ....

The Left would happily overlook ALL of that barbarity, rather than concede the decency implicit in GWB's approach. And that's before you consider the aspect of American security being enhanced by taking over a territory that'd otherwise be ruled by a friend to terrorists.

Today, of course, we have ISIS to contend with. Why ?

In no small measure, ISIS filled a vacuum created by Obama's premature withdrawal of troops .. a withdrawal so publicised that it was a gift to America's terrorist enemies.

Such is the perniciousness of the Left.

Cue FJ to argue Obama's corner ? We shall see.

[fj1200]

Really ?

Well, don't be coy ! What do YOU think it says ?

I look forward to being entertained by your Leftie reinterpretation of the obvious ...

:rolleyes: I don't have to think anything about what it says, it's stated in plain English. It references pre-Gulf War munitions which means pre-'91 munitions which is exactly what your NYT link says. What it doesn't say, that you've filled in apparently, is that they've found munitions which justify the US invasion in 2003.

[fj1200]

It was strategically the wrong thing to do.

That's just leftie talk right there. :laugh:

[fj1200]

Cue FJ to argue Obama's corner ? We shall see.

Wow, you are mind numbingly stupid. Which is what you have in common with BO.

[Drummond]

You haven't refuted the point that you were trying to win cheap points with a strawman. And you haven't shown anything; your own article disagrees with your premise, I even copied the relevant portions for you.

But of course you won't agree, to do so would show the flaw in your argument. Now you are making another unprovable assertion on top of the original one; you have to claim that ISIS is BO's fault.

"My pal BO." :rolleyes: When you have nothing to begin with double down on the ridiculous. And for the reading comprehension challenged: BO sucks.

There's certainly one part of your post that's so obviously misguided that for you to even attempt to argue it is a bizarre act.

ISIS, at least, the part of it trying to take control of Iraq, is very obviously Obama's fault !! Obama said he'd withdraw troops, and stipulated his intended timetable for it. He did so, long before he could've had any inkling that the 'local forces' were up to the job of defending Iraq from incursion.

He stuck to his plans.

We see the result. Don't we ? Obama created this situation by trying to make reality fit his much-publicised plans. Plans publicised, not least, to AMERICA'S ENEMIES, allowing them the maximum chance of coming up with countering plans of their own.

ISIS, and its present-day barbarities, is the result .. and Obama now has the task of at least appearing to try to clear up the mess which HE created.

That Leftie, for wrapping up his plans in a pretty bow and presenting them as a present for America's enemies, SHOULD, in my view, be subject to impeachment proceedings. It is NOT the job of a US President to aid America's enemies !!!

I note your 'BO sucks' statement. I congratulate you on it.

But at some stage, you'll offer us something suggesting a different stance.

I shall point it out to you at the appropriate moment.

[fj1200]

There's certainly one part of your post that's so obviously misguided that for you to even attempt to argue it is a bizarre act.

ISIS, at least, the part of it trying to take control of Iraq, is very obviously Obama's fault !! Obama said he'd withdraw troops, and stipulated his intended timetable for it. He did so, long before he could've had any inkling that the 'local forces' were up to the job of defending Iraq from incursion.

He stuck to his plans.

We see the result. Don't we ? Obama created this situation by trying to make reality fit his much-publicised plans. Plans publicised, not least, to AMERICA'S ENEMIES, allowing them the maximum chance of coming up with countering plans of their own.

ISIS, and its present-day barbarities, is the result .. and Obama now has the task of at least appearing to try to clear up the mess which HE created.

That Leftie, for wrapping up his plans in a pretty bow and presenting them as a present for America's enemies, SHOULD, in my view, be subject to impeachment proceedings. It is NOT the job of a US President to aid America's enemies !!!

I note your 'BO sucks' statement. I congratulate you on it.

But at some stage, you'll offer us something suggesting a different stance.

I shall point it out to you at the appropriate moment.

That's overly simplistic. We were ALWAYS going to leave and there will ALWAYS have been a timetable that goes along with it. As I recall even Bush had a timeline.

I've always said BO sucks. You're just too beholden to your imagination.

[Drummond]

:rolleyes: I don't have to think anything about what it says, it's stated in plain English. It references pre-Gulf War munitions which means pre-'91 munitions which is exactly what your NYT link says. What it doesn't say, that you've filled in apparently, is that they've found munitions which justify the US invasion in 2003.

Saddam said he had no WMD's at all. He claimed that all were destroyed.

He claimed falsely.

UN Resolution 1441 was not limited to addressing WMD's either in a pristine condition, or just those produced after a certain date. It existed to make Saddam accountable for ANY and ALL of the WMD's existing within Iraq's borders.

And the Santorum document stated that in excess of 500 had been found.

Even the existence of ONE would've justified invasion, let alone 500 plus.

And how do we know that there STILL aren't some hidden in Iraq ?

Answer: WE DO NOT.

Which is ANOTHER reason for censure of Obama's withdrawal plans, since not all of Iraq had been searched.

Let's hope ISIS hasn't found another cache of them .. eh ?

[Drummond]

That's overly simplistic. We were ALWAYS going to leave and there will ALWAYS have been a timetable that goes along with it. As I recall even Bush had a timeline.

I've always said BO sucks. You're just too beholden to your imagination.

What's better - to only withdraw when you're certain that local forces can take up the slack, or, to issue details of a timetable and stick to it, REGARDLESS of readiness on behalf of those 'locals' ?

Keep on telling us that BO sucks. Don't find a way of backpedalling on that. If you do, your assertion will be proven to be bogus.

[Gunny]

GWB did what he had to do on the WMD issue. There can be no question about that. The invasion in 2003 was an absolute necessity, and the case has been amply put on that score.

GWB did not make sufficient provision for the aftermath, however, and I daresay that the insurgent rush to take on American and Coalition forces wasn't properly forseen and planned for. That said, at least GWB had the decency to keep forces stationed there. Contrast that with Obama and his enthusiasm for getting American forces OUT, and EVEN to declare to the world, years in advance (!!) exactly what his plans were on that score.

Truly incredible.

But give GWB his due. A fledgling democracy was created in Iraq on his watch. Did it operate smoothly ? Of course not. But it was still a better thing for Iraq than Saddam's despotism, his warfare adventurism, his association with terrorists, his creation of mass graves, his gassing of the Kurds (yes, with a WMD !) and his regime's rape rooms ....

The Left would happily overlook ALL of that barbarity, rather than concede the decency implicit in GWB's approach. And that's before you consider the aspect of American security being enhanced by taking over a territory that'd otherwise be ruled by a friend to terrorists.

Today, of course, we have ISIS to contend with. Why ?

In no small measure, ISIS filled a vacuum created by Obama's premature withdrawal of troops .. a withdrawal so publicised that it was a gift to America's terrorist enemies.

Such is the perniciousness of the Left.

Cue FJ to argue Obama's corner ? We shall see.

GWB did what he wanted to do, not what he had to. I'm not any of those sitting around saying he violated anything by invading Iraq. You're missing the point. There's a bigger picture than just Saddam being a bad guy. He WAS a bad guy. I don't mourn his loss. You're seeing the individual act. Saddam's the bad guy and Gary Cooper gunned him down at high noon. In THAT regard you are correct.

In the forum of geographical politics and repercussions, taking the finger out of the dyke was rather foolish. It created a flood. In fact, Obama withdrawing troops was stupid in its own right, but had nothing to do with ISIS. You're simplifying things and making correlations that don't exist.

ISIS was an extension of AQ, bent on taking out the minority shia government in Syria. ISIS got so violent and out of control, AQ kicked them out. That is THEIR war, not ours. It had nothing to do with Iraq, nor us. It has to do with a war between the sunni and shia. Western arrogance can't accept the fact anything's happening that isn't about us. The fact is, we want to be in control of whoever is in control of the oil. There's nothing righteous about that.

Figure this one in ... we support Iraq. Iraq is predominantly shia. The shia are led from Tehran. We're not friends with Tehran. We ARE friends with Saudi Arabia. The wahbbis/AQ/ISIS are sunni. Supported under the table by Saudi Arabia. Our "ally". It amounts to us kicking our own asses. That oil money we give Saudi Arabia? Funds AQ/ISIS/the Taliban.

Saddam stood squarely between the sunni and the shia. It's just that simple. Taking him out was strategically dumb. So, Obama didn't help this mess, but he didn't create it either. Taking Saddam out did.

[revelarts]

1991 Chenney and Shwarzkof both talk inevitable quagmire that Iraq would be if invaded.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6BEsZMvrq-I



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=9mO4UCYyef8

[grannyhawkins]

The Iraqi WMDs deniers are morons. Even their beloved DemocRats all, in unison, agreed that Saddam did indeed possess WMDs. Of course, that was during Clinton's presidency and it was A-OK to be a warmongering hawk then, as long as you had that "D" beside your name. When Bush won the WH, all that changed, of course.

Leftie lies & double-standards....the only standards they've ever had or ever will have.

I've been tellin the librawl left maroons fur years, that if they wanted proof, all they needed ta do was to go ask the Kurds!!!

[fj1200]

What's better - to only withdraw when you're certain that local forces can take up the slack, or, to issue details of a timetable and stick to it, REGARDLESS of readiness on behalf of those 'locals' ?

Keep on telling us that BO sucks. Don't find a way of backpedalling on that. If you do, your assertion will be proven to be bogus.

So you now have a 20/20 crystal ball? :rolleyes: It must be nice for your simple mind to create the necessary conditions for you to be right. I've always said your imagination is overly active just like I've always said that BO sucks. But thanks for agreeing that there would ALWAYS be a withdrawal and there would ALWAYS be a timeline.

[jimnyc]

Rep points to the first person who correctly identifies the connection. :)

http://i.imgur.com/s6cXahD.jpg

[fj1200]

Saddam said he had no WMD's at all. He claimed that all were destroyed.

He claimed falsely.

UN Resolution 1441 was not limited to addressing WMD's either in a pristine condition, or just those produced after a certain date. It existed to make Saddam accountable for ANY and ALL of the WMD's existing within Iraq's borders.

And the Santorum document stated that in excess of 500 had been found.

Even the existence of ONE would've justified invasion, let alone 500 plus.

And how do we know that there STILL aren't some hidden in Iraq ?

Answer: WE DO NOT.

Which is ANOTHER reason for censure of Obama's withdrawal plans, since not all of Iraq had been searched.

Let's hope ISIS hasn't found another cache of them .. eh ?

If not all of Iraq had been searched then you can also blame Bush for not doing so when we had full run of the country. Nevertheless I'll leave this for you to justify:


The Bush administration commissioned the Iraq Survey Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Survey_Group) to determine whether in fact any WMD existed in Iraq. After a year and half of meticulously combing through the country, the administration’s own inspectors reported:[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441#ci te_note-15)
<tbody>
“
"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered."
”

</tbody>
The review was conducted by Charles A. Duelfer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_A._Duelfer) and the Iraq Survey Group. In October 2004, Bush said of Duelfer’s analysis:[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441#ci te_note-16) "The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441#Af termath

But two issues for you remain; 1. It's not whether we had the legal authority, Saddam sucked, it's whether the justification panned out and the link above removes a large justification from the equation. Would we have gotten the authority of 1441 to invade or would we have gotten the partners to go in with us?
2. Your claim of "FACT" in the OP has since fallen apart as well as your strawman against your unnamed deniers.

But overall Gunny is right; while we may have been justified, strategically it was very questionable.

[fj1200]

Rep points to the first person who correctly identifies the connection. :)

http://i.imgur.com/s6cXahD.jpg

Deja vu all over again.

But knuckleheads getting smoked all over again shouldn't be surprising. :)

[jimnyc]

Deja vu all over again.

But knuckleheads getting smoked all over again shouldn't be surprising. :)

Why you fucker! Did you see the movie? Was awesome!

That's cause the knuckleheads should concentrate more on what was 100000000000% verified that they had, in TONS, that literally disappeared. Cannot be disputed that they had them and cannot be disputed that they were never accounted for again. And I don't think a murdering dictator should be allowed to control and continue to kill people, just because he prevents further death, outside of his own. Nor do I think resolutions to have them be in compliance, should also be ignored, because the murderer himself may prevent more deaths than his own. It's letting a mass murderer get away with his crimes to prevent violence and more death. Being a good dictator shouldn't allow someone to murder, and continue to murder. I think he should have to pay - but I admit it's above my pay grade on how to have done so AND prevent the violence from breaking out.

That's all I can possibly type on this particular subject. My fingers are dead and fighting back as little zombies to prevent me from typing about this subject, yet again. So bite me!

[Drummond]

If not all of Iraq had been searched then you can also blame Bush for not doing so when we had full run of the country. Nevertheless I'll leave this for you to justify:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441#Af termath

But two issues for you remain; 1. It's not whether we had the legal authority, Saddam sucked, it's whether the justification panned out and the link above removes a large justification from the equation. Would we have gotten the authority of 1441 to invade or would we have gotten the partners to go in with us?
2. Your claim of "FACT" in the OP has since fallen apart as well as your strawman against your unnamed deniers.

But overall Gunny is right; while we may have been justified, strategically it was very questionable.

Translation:

1. All old WMD's are harmless, to be ignored -- even if NOT harmless ......

2. You still cling to your delusions.

3. I maintain that deposing a maverick, terrorist-friendly regime, one known to have had no qualms about using a WMD against it OWN people (!!) ... is actually a GOOD thing.

... naughty ol' me, eh .. ??

[fj1200]

Why you fucker! Did you see the movie? Was awesome!

That's cause the knuckleheads should concentrate more on what was 100000000000% verified that they had, in TONS, that literally disappeared. Cannot be disputed that they had them and cannot be disputed that they were never accounted for again. And I don't think a murdering dictator should be allowed to control and continue to kill people, just because he prevents further death, outside of his own. Nor do I think resolutions to have them be in compliance, should also be ignored, because the murderer himself may prevent more deaths than his own. It's letting a mass murderer get away with his crimes to prevent violence and more death. Being a good dictator shouldn't allow someone to murder, and continue to murder. I think he should have to pay - but I admit it's above my pay grade on how to have done so AND prevent the violence from breaking out.

That's all I can possibly type on this particular subject. My fingers are dead and fighting back as little zombies to prevent me from typing about this subject, yet again. So bite me!

You are a man of your word. ;) And no, I don't think I saw it. :whistling2:

Everyone knows what he had prior to '91 but much of the question centered around what he's alleged to have had post '91. But of course Saddam being gone is good unless what came after is worse for the people. And that doesn't get into the question of American interests. And that's quite the standard you endorse.

[fj1200]

Translation:

1. All old WMD's are harmless, to be ignored -- even if NOT harmless ......

2. You still cling to your delusions.

3. I maintain that deposing a maverick, terrorist-friendly regime, one known to have had no qualms about using a WMD against it OWN people (!!) ... is actually a GOOD thing.

... naughty ol' me, eh .. ??

Your translation is, as typical, wrong.

1. Saddam wasn't being ignored but you're ignoring the relevant question; What was alleged vs. what ended up being true?
2. I only cling to FACT - and that doesn't include my imagination.
3. It is good that Saddam is gone except for what came after is worse - FACT.

And of course naughty ol' you for ignoring the basis of your own thread when it turns out not to be so cut and dry.

[Drummond]

Your translation is, as typical, wrong.

1. Saddam wasn't being ignored but you're ignoring the relevant question; What was alleged vs. what ended up being true?
2. I only cling to FACT - and that doesn't include my imagination.
3. It is good that Saddam is gone except for what came after is worse - FACT.

And of course naughty ol' you for ignoring the basis of your own thread when it turns out not to be so cut and dry.

Well, let's see, shall we ?

It was alleged that Saddam had WMD's. UN Resolution 1441 required Saddam to declare the truth about them ... if any held, how many. If it was claimed that none were held, proof of their disposal was to be supplied.

In the event, Saddam claimed that all had been destroyed. He provided no count of exactly how many had been. He showed UN inspectors sites where destructions had occurred .. being totally unable to prove how MANY had been destroyed. This all reduced the UN's efforts to utter farce.

So, the US invaded. Since that time, WMD's actually HAVE been found, in quantity, proving Saddam to be a totally untrustworthy liar. And as the Santorum document stated, even old, degraded WMD's were useful to terrorists. They therefore HAD to be found, HAD to be removed beyond anyone's reach.

QED, therefore .. THE INVASION WAS NECESSARY.

What followed Saddam was worse, you say ?

Well ...what is worse from this choice ? One .... what did actually follow. Or -- two, that the world is taught that Saddam could face down the UN, ignore them, be invulnerable to consequences, build whatever WMD stocks he chose, do whatever deals with terrorists he chose to have, and on top of that, teach every nutter out there in the world that ANYONE, ANYWHERE, can create their own WMD stockpiles, and be immune to any comeback from it !!!

If you seriously believe that a world full of crazies sitting on their own WMD heaps is BETTER than the world as it was and is, post-2003 invasion ... you really ARE delusional !! ...

.... in a Leftie sort of way, of course .....

[fj1200]

Well, let's see, shall we ?

It was alleged that Saddam had WMD's. UN Resolution 1441 required Saddam to declare the truth about them ... if any held, how many. If it was claimed that none were held, proof of their disposal was to be supplied.

In the event, Saddam claimed that all had been destroyed. He provided no count of exactly how many had been. He showed UN inspectors sites where destructions had occurred .. being totally unable to prove how MANY had been destroyed. This all reduced the UN's efforts to utter farce.

So, the US invaded. Since that time, WMD's actually HAVE been found, in quantity, proving Saddam to be a totally untrustworthy liar. And as the Santorum document stated, even old, degraded WMD's were useful to terrorists. They therefore HAD to be found, HAD to be removed beyond anyone's reach.

QED, therefore .. THE INVASION WAS NECESSARY.

What followed Saddam was worse, you say ?

Well ...what is worse from this choice ? One .... what did actually follow. Or -- two, that the world is taught that Saddam could face down the UN, ignore them, be invulnerable to consequences, build whatever WMD stocks he chose, do whatever deals with terrorists he chose to have, and on top of that, teach every nutter out there in the world that ANYONE, ANYWHERE, can create their own WMD stockpiles, and be immune to any comeback from it !!!

If you seriously believe that a world full of crazies sitting on their own WMD heaps is BETTER than the world as it was and is, post-2003 invasion ... you really ARE delusional !! ...

.... in a Leftie sort of way, of course .....

You keep stating things that are known, followed by things that you wish to be true, followed by things you assume, and then with a summary of things your imagination tells you. I submit, and you can't prove otherwise, that a contained Saddam is better than a rampant ISIS.

[DLT]

The link of the day seems to disagree with you:


Funny....but.....I don't see any link.

[fj1200]

Funny....but.....I don't see any link.


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

You're welcome. ;)

[Drummond]

You keep stating things that are known, followed by things that you wish to be true, followed by things you assume, and then with a summary of things your imagination tells you. I submit, and you can't prove otherwise, that a contained Saddam is better than a rampant ISIS.

You continue to be delusional.

ISIS is rampant across the world ? Because, in my scenario, tinpot nutters ANYWHERE would've considered themselves free to build WMD stockpiles. I submit, and you can't prove otherwise, that a Saddam able to prove that a maverick regime need not consider itself constrained by ANY expression of world opinion, would succeed in teaching just that lesson.

You talk of a 'contained Saddam'. So tell me, from what possible basis would Saddam have considered himself 'contained' ? Being successful in defying the world, FJ, is not something likely to teach 'containment' !!

Perhaps you have in mind some sort of military containment ? So tell us how that would work. Particularly, tell us for how long such 'containment' would need to be in place, and of the resources needed to maintain containment ...

... and for what, anyway .. to prop up a terrorist-friendly dictatorship, one that brutalised its own people ???

[grannyhawkins]

I might be a tad off topic, but ISIS, is nuthin more than the same ole same ole, that ole bj Clinton was havin ta deal with. Saddam was havin ta deal with em as well as gadhafi. What really chaps my arse is how this nation has continually abused the Kurds. If it was up to me, I'd make a pact with the Kurds an help them take over the entire region!!! Then I might have a real ally, in the region an then turkey can go ahead on an kiss my fookin arse!!!

[fj1200]

You continue to be delusional.

ISIS is rampant across the world ? Because, in my scenario, tinpot nutters ANYWHERE would've considered themselves free to build WMD stockpiles. I submit, and you can't prove otherwise, that a Saddam able to prove that a maverick regime need not consider itself constrained by ANY expression of world opinion, would succeed in teaching just that lesson.

You talk of a 'contained Saddam'. So tell me, from what possible basis would Saddam have considered himself 'contained' ? Being successful in defying the world, FJ, is not something likely to teach 'containment' !!

Perhaps you have in mind some sort of military containment ? So tell us how that would work. Particularly, tell us for how long such 'containment' would need to be in place, and of the resources needed to maintain containment ...

... and for what, anyway .. to prop up a terrorist-friendly dictatorship, one that brutalised its own people ???

And you continue to create in your mind what you need to. :dunno:

Point out where I said ISIS is rampant across the world? Your world is not one based on the reality of the day, Saddam was not free to build anything as he was constantly watched by the US and others. He was subjected to searches, no-fly zones, etc. But containment takes as long as it takes but your "how long" argument shoots yourself in the foot; How long are we to be there after taking him out? You keep saying that BO left to early and created a timeline, etc. so what would your version of "how long" be? I hear arguments all the time that the Iraqis would never be able to keep what we gave them so why do you get to presume that if only BO hadn't muffed it up that they would be able to handle any threats? How long do we need to stay in Afghanistan so that they can take care of themselves? Your position has no support other than because you say so.

And who would be propping anyone up? There's a difference between propping up and not deposing. Totalitarians brutalize their own people across the world and we don't take action across the world.

Maybe once you abandon your imaginative paranoia you'll be able to engage in a reasonable conversation.

[Gunny]

You continue to be delusional.

ISIS is rampant across the world ? Because, in my scenario, tinpot nutters ANYWHERE would've considered themselves free to build WMD stockpiles. I submit, and you can't prove otherwise, that a Saddam able to prove that a maverick regime need not consider itself constrained by ANY expression of world opinion, would succeed in teaching just that lesson.

You talk of a 'contained Saddam'. So tell me, from what possible basis would Saddam have considered himself 'contained' ? Being successful in defying the world, FJ, is not something likely to teach 'containment' !!

Perhaps you have in mind some sort of military containment ? So tell us how that would work. Particularly, tell us for how long such 'containment' would need to be in place, and of the resources needed to maintain containment ...

... and for what, anyway .. to prop up a terrorist-friendly dictatorship, one that brutalised its own people ???

You're building a SERIOUS strawman. Lot of what if's here.

Saddam was NOT terrorist friendly. That's BS. He didn't trust his own shadow.

We had military containment. That isn't a question.

The fact is, Saddam considering himself defying the US (not the world) was talk. Paper tiger.

You just don't get the big picture, do you? SEE @shadow. We destabilized an entire region of the world because "Saddam was a bad guy."

[Raman]

http://patriotupdate.com/2014/10/wmd-found-iraq-bush-right-pentagon-hid-chemical-weapons/

[Drummond]

You're building a SERIOUS strawman. Lot of what if's here.

Saddam was NOT terrorist friendly. That's BS. He didn't trust his own shadow.

We had military containment. That isn't a question.

The fact is, Saddam considering himself defying the US (not the world) was talk. Paper tiger.

You just don't get the big picture, do you? SEE @shadow. We destabilized an entire region of the world because "Saddam was a bad guy."

Just caught up with this one.

I'm astonished at your claim that Saddam being terrorist-friendly is 'BS'. I thought his links with terrorism were well known, and well established ?

He even acted like one, when placed under any real pressure. Consider Gulf War #1, when he decided to fire Scuds at Israel. Hamas couldn't have hoped for better.

Talking of Hamas - Saddam's regime bankrolled Hamas. See this report ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2846365.stm


Saddam Hussein has paid out thousands of dollars to families of Palestinians killed in fighting with Israel.Relatives of at least one suicide attacker as well as other militants and civilians gathered in a hall in Gaza City to receive cheques.

"Iraq and Palestine are in one trench. Saddam is a hero," read a banner over a picture of the Iraqi leader and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat at the ceremony.

A Hamas suicide bomber's family got $25,000 while the others - relatives of militants killed in fighting or civilians killed during Israeli military operations - all received $10,000 each.

Another banner in the hall described the cheques as the "blessings of Saddam Hussein" and PALF speakers extolled the Iraqi leader in fiery speeches.

"Saddam Hussein considers those who die in martyrdom attacks as people who have won the highest degree of martyrdom," said one.

The party estimated that Iraq had paid out $35m to Palestinian families since the current uprising began in September 2000.

Saddam's avowed support for the Palestinians, and his missile attacks on Israel during the Gulf War, have won him wide backing in the territories.

Israel condemned the Iraqi handouts as funding for terrorism.

"It shows that Saddam is involved in every activity that is terrorism and murderous and leads to instability in the Middle East," said Amira Oron, a spokeswoman for the Foreign Ministry.

Do you claim that this is a false report ?

Here's another:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/world/saddam-bankrolled-palestinian-terrorists-1-558334


Key points

• Documents show Saddam funded Palestinian terrorist group

• Syrian business front funded terrorists through UN oil-for-food programme

• 1991 tape reveals Saddam wanted to use biological weapons against Israel

Story in full SADDAM Hussein’s links to terrorism have been proven by documents showing he helped to fund the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

The PFLP, whose history of terrorism dates back to the "black September" hijackings of 1970, was personally vetted by Saddam to receive oil vouchers worth 40 million.

The deal has been uncovered by US investigators, trawling millions of pages of documents showing a network of diplomats bribed by Saddam’s regimes, and political parties who qualified for backhanded payments from Baghdad.

The Iraq Survey Group (ISG), which is still working its way through 20,000 boxes of documents from Saddam’s Baath party discovered only recently, found a list of pressure groups bankrolled by Saddam.

Using the United Nations’ own oil-for-food scheme - ironically intended as a sanction to control the behaviour of his dictatorship - Saddam gave Awad Ammora & Partners, a Syrian company, two million barrels of oil.

Documents handed over to US authorities by a former Iraqi oil minister only four months ago show that this was a front for the PFLP - which was then embarked on a spate of car bombings aimed at Israeli officials.

The Iraqi records show only one six-month period - suggesting the payments could go on for much longer. While some allocations to the likes of Russian political parties were not cashed in, the PFLP oil deal was carried out in full.

Since its inception after the Six-Day War of 1967, the PFLP has been dedicated to violence - and for this reason split from the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) when it accepted the peace process.

Its first atrocity came in September 1970 when its members hijacked four aircraft bound for the United States. All planes were blown up on the ground after the passengers were evacuated. A hijacking at Lod airport in Israel two years later left 24 dead.

It is now devoted to thwarting the "roadmap" plan for peace in the Middle East - recently mainly through a campaign of car bombs.

Is this another false report ?

Leaving Saddam alone would've meant teaching Saddam, A TERRORIST ENABLER, that he was free to create whatever size of WMD stockpile he wanted. And this, a lesson taught TO A KNOWN FRIEND OF TERRORISTS.

QED. Saddam had to be dealt with. And - thankfully - was.

[Gunny]

I choose to not repeat why you are wrong again. Go back and re-read my previous posts that point out why you are factually incorrect.

[fj1200]

Leaving Saddam alone would've meant teaching Saddam, A TERRORIST ENABLER, that he was free to create whatever size of WMD stockpile he wanted. And this, a lesson taught TO A KNOWN FRIEND OF TERRORISTS.

QED. Saddam had to be dealt with. And - thankfully - was.

Strawman. Who claimed he would be left alone? What was he free to do that he apparently hadn't done since '91? If the preceding is true then your QED is false. :)

[Gunny]

Translation:

1. All old WMD's are harmless, to be ignored -- even if NOT harmless ......

2. You still cling to your delusions.

3. I maintain that deposing a maverick, terrorist-friendly regime, one known to have had no qualms about using a WMD against it OWN people (!!) ... is actually a GOOD thing.

... naughty ol' me, eh .. ??

Biological and chemical weapons have a half life. The DO render themselves harmless over time. Bio weapons especially have to be constantly maintained. They're living organisms?

Chemical weapons also break down over time.

Nothing delusional about that. Just fact.

Saddam did not have a terrorist friendly regime. That's a fact too.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Just caught up with this one.

I'm astonished at your claim that Saddam being terrorist-friendly is 'BS'. I thought his links with terrorism were well known, and well established ?

He even acted like one, when placed under any real pressure. Consider Gulf War #1, when he decided to fire Scuds at Israel. Hamas couldn't have hoped for better.

Talking of Hamas - Saddam's regime bankrolled Hamas. See this report ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2846365.stm



Do you claim that this is a false report ?

Here's another:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/world/saddam-bankrolled-palestinian-terrorists-1-558334



Is this another false report ?

Leaving Saddam alone would've meant teaching Saddam, A TERRORIST ENABLER, that he was free to create whatever size of WMD stockpile he wanted. And this, a lesson taught TO A KNOWN FRIEND OF TERRORISTS.

QED. Saddam had to be dealt with. And - thankfully - was.

Dead on accurate, Saddam was not friendly to any opposing group in his nation--
he killed them all but he was a terrorist enabler and did fund terrorism aimed at
the West--(USA and/or Israel).. That is a fact..--Tyr

[Gunny]

Dead on accurate, Saddam was not friendly to any opposing group in his nation--
he killed them all but he was a terrorist enabler and did fund terrorism aimed at
the West--(USA and/or Israel).. That is a fact..--Tyr

Nothing accurate at all. In fact, it's a lie.

Saddam didn't enable terrorists, nor did he fund them.

But YOU do.

[jimnyc]

Biological and chemical weapons have a half life. The DO render themselves harmless over time. Bio weapons especially have to be constantly maintained. They're living organisms?

Chemical weapons also break down over time.

Nothing delusional about that. Just fact.

Saddam did not have a terrorist friendly regime. That's a fact too.

For what it's worth, they last a LOT longer when broke down and not "weaponized" yet. The half life can last as long as 20 years when stored properly, and then they weaponize prior to use. I have lengthy posts on this and how the chemical weapons they had were stored. Then add in literally tons of chemical weapons that were accounted for and tagged in 1998, that went missing upon return in 2001. For 2 years the UN made demands of their whereabouts and proof and such, and were literally ignored. Blix had them in material breach based on this just a few short months prior to invasion.

Is this a smoking gun of sorts? I'm not saying there is proof that he was in the midst of making nuclear weapons - but the chemical weapons they had accounted for could have killed hundreds of thousands, if not millions, if weaponized and used properly to hit citizenry. That's why it was so important to account for these chemical weapons. That was a HUGE breach in the UN resolutions they agreed to. There is no doubt that literally tons of these chemical weapons can kill "masses". Mustard gas, Sarin, Tabun, Nerve VX and more. Maybe not as potent as the day it was delivered, but that amount, TONS, of chemical weapons can still be lethal.

[jimnyc]

Nothing accurate at all. In fact, it's a lie.

Saddam didn't enable terrorists, nor did he fund them.

But YOU do.

Admittedly, I didn't do my due diligence with this article, was just a quick grab...

.....



THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials.

The secret training took place primarily at three camps--in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak--and was directed by elite Iraqi military units. Interviews by U.S. government interrogators with Iraqi regime officials and military leaders corroborate the documentary evidence. Many of the fighters were drawn from terrorist groups in northern Africa with close ties to al Qaeda, chief among them Algeria's GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army. Some 2,000 terrorists were trained at these Iraqi camps each year from 1999 to 2002, putting the total number at or above 8,000. Intelligence officials believe that some of these terrorists returned to Iraq and are responsible for attacks against Americans and Iraqis. According to three officials with knowledge of the intelligence on Iraqi training camps, White House and National Security Council officials were briefed on these findings in May 2005; senior Defense Department officials subsequently received the same briefing.

The photographs and documents on Iraqi training camps come from a collection of some 2 million "exploitable items" captured in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan. They include handwritten notes, typed documents, audiotapes, videotapes, compact discs, floppy discs, and computer hard drives. Taken together, this collection could give U.S. intelligence officials and policymakers an inside look at the activities of the former Iraqi regime in the months and years before the Iraq war.

The discovery of the information on jihadist training camps in Iraq would seem to have two major consequences: It exposes the flawed assumptions of the experts and U.S. intelligence officials who told us for years that a secularist like Saddam Hussein would never work with Islamic radicals, any more than such jihadists would work with an infidel like the Iraqi dictator. It also reminds us that valuable information remains buried in the mountain of documents recovered in Afghanistan and Iraq over the past four years.

Nearly three years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, only 50,000 of these 2 million "exploitable items" have been thoroughly examined. That's 2.5 percent. Despite the hard work of the individuals assigned to the "DOCEX" project, the process is not moving quickly enough, says Michael Tanji, a former Defense Intelligence Agency official who helped lead the document exploitation effort for 18 months. "At this rate," he says, "if we continue to approach DOCEX in a linear fashion, our great-grandchildren will still be sorting through this stuff."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Nothing accurate at all. In fact, it's a lie.

Saddam didn't enable terrorists, nor did he fund them.

But YOU do.

Not very smart are you??----------:laugh: --Tyr





http://www.nysun.com/foreign/report-details-saddams-terrorist-ties/72906/

Report Details Saddam's Terrorist Ties

By ELI LAKE, Staff Reporter of the Sun | March 14, 2008
WASHINGTON — A Pentagon review of about 600,000 documents captured in the Iraq war attests to Saddam Hussein's willingness to use terrorism to target Americans and work closely with jihadist organizations throughout the Middle East.

The report, released this week by the Institute for Defense Analyses, says it found no "smoking gun" linking Iraq operationally to Al Qaeda. But it does say Saddam collaborated with known Al Qaeda affiliates and a wider constellation of Islamist terror groups.

The report, titled "Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents," finds that:

• The Iraqi Intelligence Service in a 1993 memo to Saddam agreed on a plan to train commandos from Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the group that assassinated Anwar Sadat and was founded by Al Qaeda's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

• In the same year, Saddam ordered his intelligence service to "form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia." At the time, Al Qaeda was working with warlords against American forces there.

• Saddam's intelligence services maintained extensive support networks for a wide range of Palestinian Arab terrorist organizations, including but not limited to Hamas. Among the other Palestinian groups Saddam supported at the time was Force 17, the private army loyal to Yasser Arafat.

• Beginning in 1999, Iraq's intelligence service began providing "financial and moral support" for a small radical Islamist Kurdish sect the report does not name. A Kurdish Islamist group called Ansar al Islam in 2002 would try to assassinate the regional prime minister in the eastern Kurdish region, Barham Salih.

• In 2001, Saddam's intelligence service drafted a manual titled "Lessons in Secret Organization and Jihad Work—How to Organize and Overthrow the Saudi Royal Family." In the same year, his intelligence service submitted names of 10 volunteer "martyrs" for operations inside the Kingdom.

• In 2000, Iraq sent a suicide bomber through Northern Iraq who intended to travel to London to assassinate Ahmad Chalabi, at the time an Iraqi opposition leader who would later go on to be an Iraqi deputy prime minister. The mission was aborted after the bomber could not obtain a visa to enter the United Kingdom.

The report finds that Abdul Rahman Yasin, who is wanted by the FBI for mixing the chemicals for the 1993 World Center Attack, was a prisoner, and not a guest, in Iraq. An audio file of Saddam cited by the report indicates that the Iraqi dictator did not trust him and at one point said that he thought his testimony was too "organized." Saddam said on an audio file cited by the report that he suspected that the first attack could be the work of either Israel or American intelligence, or perhaps a Saudi or Egyptian faction.

The report also undercuts the claim made by many on the left and many at the CIA that Saddam, as a national socialist, was incapable of supporting or collaborating with the Islamist al Qaeda. The report concludes that instead Iraq's relationship with Osama bin Laden's organization was similar to the relationship between the rival Colombian cocaine cartels in the 1990s. Both were rivals in some sense for market share, but also allies when it came to expanding the size of the overall market.




But YOU do
Really, prove it , slow one.. --:laugh:
You talk a lot but rarely ever link or prove what you say.. :laugh:

Seems Jim answered you too and proved you wrong...---------------- :rofl1: --Tyr

[Gunny]

Not very smart are you??----------:laugh: --Tyr






Really, prove it , slow one.. --:laugh:
You talk a lot but rarely ever link or prove what you say.. :laugh:

Seems Jim answered you too and proved you wrong...---------------- :rofl1: --Tyr

Try educating yourself instead of linking to wrote bullshit. The only thing funny here is you thinking you're funny. You're an uneducated moron.

And I mean that in the nicest of ways. :)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Try educating yourself instead of linking to wrote bullshit. The only thing funny here is you thinking you're funny. You're an uneducated moron.

And I mean that in the nicest of ways. :)


Two links given one by Jim and one by me, both prove you wrong.

What do you do?

Reply to mine with an insult and ignore Jim's link and his comments.

Obvious to one and all that it is you needing the education..
Now refute either linked source or admit your were wrong..

I hope that my thinking this is funny does not offend your finely tuned, delicate sensibilities. :laugh:


Try educating yourself instead of linking to wrote bullshit.

False accusation and bad grammar too..
word should have been -- "written"--not wrote... :laugh: --Tyr

[Drummond]

Biological and chemical weapons have a half life. The DO render themselves harmless over time. Bio weapons especially have to be constantly maintained. They're living organisms?

Chemical weapons also break down over time.

Nothing delusional about that. Just fact.

Saddam did not have a terrorist friendly regime. That's a fact too.

You state that Saddam 'did not have a terrorist friendly regime' ... but, I've already provided links showing otherwise. I ask again ... are they false reports? Yes or no ?

For you to be right, then they'd have to be. I look forward to your evidence of their falsehood.

I understand that what had been found in Iraq were old chemical weapons. I think it to be understood that the contents of them had already degraded ... to whatever extent that was true per weapon. Nonetheless .. your own Intelligence people concluded that, degraded or not, terrorists could STILL use them.

They may be less dangerous than they were designed to be. But they remained viable either as standalone weapons, or, the basis for others.

Neutralising them was a necessary act. That meant capturing them in the first place !!

[DLT]

Two links given one by Jim and one by me, both prove you wrong.

What do you do?

Reply to mine with an insult and ignore Jim's link and his comments.

Obvious to one and all that it is you needing the education..
Now refute either linked source or admit your were wrong..

I hope that my thinking this is funny does not offend your finely tuned, delicate sensibilities. :laugh:



False accusation and bad grammar too..
word should have been -- "written"--not wrote... :laugh: --Tyr

Lol! "finely tuned, delicate sensibilities"!!!

[aboutime]

Two links given one by Jim and one by me, both prove you wrong.

What do you do?

Reply to mine with an insult and ignore Jim's link and his comments.

Obvious to one and all that it is you needing the education..
Now refute either linked source or admit your were wrong..

I hope that my thinking this is funny does not offend your finely tuned, delicate sensibilities. :laugh:



False accusation and bad grammar too..
word should have been -- "written"--not wrote... :laugh: --Tyr


Tyr. We all can see who the name calling comes from. Accusations are just used unsuccessfully to hide the accuser's lack of smart.
And to anyone who declares me off base with this. I DON'T GIVE A CRAP. The truth can never be changed.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Quote Originally Posted by Gunny View Post

Try educating yourself instead of linking to wrote bullshit. The only thing funny here is you thinking you're funny. You're an uneducated moron.

And I mean that in the nicest of ways.





Quote Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot View Post

Two links given one by Jim and one by me, both prove you wrong.

What do you do?

Reply to mine with an insult and ignore Jim's link and his comments.

Obvious to one and all that it is you needing the education..
Now refute either linked source or admit your were wrong..

I hope that my thinking this is funny does not offend your finely tuned, delicate sensibilities.

False accusation and bad grammar too..
word should have been -- "written"--not "wrote" ... --Tyr







Lol! "finely tuned, delicate sensibilities"!!!

Ok, so I stretched it a bit --:rofl1:--Tyr

[Gunny]

Two links given one by Jim and one by me, both prove you wrong.

What do you do?

Reply to mine with an insult and ignore Jim's link and his comments.

Obvious to one and all that it is you needing the education..
Now refute either linked source or admit your were wrong..

I hope that my thinking this is funny does not offend your finely tuned, delicate sensibilities. :laugh:



False accusation and bad grammar too..
word should have been -- "written"--not wrote... :laugh: --Tyr

Resorting to playing grammar Nazi because you're just that damned uneducated?

You lose again. I misspelled a word. Should have been "rote". You know, like cut -n- paste regurgitation of the same old Democratic Party lie without any knowledge of what you're saying?

That makes you STILL wrong, imbecile. I just misspelled a word. You missed an ideal.