Remember folks when you read this ...THERE WERE NEVER NEVER any WMDs!!!

[TooTall]

4,000+ young American lives, tens of thousands of lost limbs and minds, thousands of destroyed families over one trillion dollars that we didn't have, and an even more destabilized Middle East.

For that?

No thanks.

1.2 million children ALIVE today because they weren't starved by Saddam's refusal to admit he DIDN"T have WMDs!
And now we know he DID!
Or how about these Iraqi's
"So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it"
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put the question to Barham Salih, the former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan's regional government and a former deputy prime minister of Iraq's federal government.
"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ... Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves. Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq. And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein -- the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."
So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it; and the fault for all that has gone wrong is ultimately with Iraqis themselves: It's a remarkable point of view to encounter in June 2013.
10 Years After the Fall of Saddam How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War - The Atlantic

You do realize that sending Americans to die by the thousands so some people in some other country can 'feel better' is not a just cause...

...a just cause for American military action is when there is a dire threat to our vital interests.

We had no vital interests in Iraq, therefore the invasion cannot be justified.

Tell that to Hillary Clinton and John Kerry who voted in the US Senate to authorize military action in Iraq.

 

[dannyboys]

4,000+ young American lives, tens of thousands of lost limbs and minds, thousands of destroyed families over one trillion dollars that we didn't have, and an even more destabilized Middle East.

For that?

No thanks.

1.2 million children ALIVE today because they weren't starved by Saddam's refusal to admit he DIDN"T have WMDs!
And now we know he DID!
Or how about these Iraqi's
"So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it"
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put the question to Barham Salih, the former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan's regional government and a former deputy prime minister of Iraq's federal government.
"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ... Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves. Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq. And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein -- the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."
So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it; and the fault for all that has gone wrong is ultimately with Iraqis themselves: It's a remarkable point of view to encounter in June 2013.
10 Years After the Fall of Saddam How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War - The Atlantic

You do realize that sending Americans to die by the thousands so some people in some other country can 'feel better' is not a just cause...

...a just cause for American military action is when there is a dire threat to our vital interests.

We had no vital interests in Iraq, therefore the invasion cannot be justified.

Tell the millions of people who "felt better" after the Allies, including the US went to "another country" to save them from the Germans.............TWICE!
Sadam had been telling the world he was a short time away from having a nuke. The world couldn't prove he was or was not telling the truth. The world choose not to take any chances.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, it was not about chemical weapons that put America behind the President, it was about a NUCLEAR WMD threat that was hyped by the administration....it was about yellowcake and
Valerie Plame's husband exposing the LIE THE ADMINISTRATION WAS SAYING ON IT.... it was about waking up to a Mushroom cloud...

WE KNEW saddam had chemical weapons, and chemical weapons that were deteriorating...

Chemical weapons could not reach us here in the USA, they were of no threat to the USA that required us to start a war against a sovereign nation, and put our men out there to die for....

STOP rewriting history to make yourselves 'feel' better....now that all our guys are DEAD and MAIMED.

So the far left press sold the idea of Nukes? Even though Powell cited chemical weapons and mobile chemical labs?

The press quoted what President Bush, and vice pres Cheney and condi rice, and rumsfeld and wolfowitz said..... if what the president and the administration implied about Nukes was not important, then why did the administration push the idea?

isn't it funny how they forget that judy miller did baby bush's bidding and lied in her NY Times articles?

BASED ON THE LIES OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. but why should they let facts get in their way

So the far left NYTimes prints an article that was wrong! Go figure that one.

However one far left blog site does not the media make.

And as always the far left shows that the history of Iraq began in 2003 to them.

No, they are claiming they always knew he had chemical weapons. That is what they are claiming, like the miserable fucking liars they are.

They knew he had chemical weapons. The inspectors had even secured many of them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

4,000+ young American lives, tens of thousands of lost limbs and minds, thousands of destroyed families over one trillion dollars that we didn't have, and an even more destabilized Middle East.

For that?

No thanks.

1.2 million children ALIVE today because they weren't starved by Saddam's refusal to admit he DIDN"T have WMDs!
And now we know he DID!
Or how about these Iraqi's
"So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it"
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put the question to Barham Salih, the former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan's regional government and a former deputy prime minister of Iraq's federal government.
"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ... Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves. Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq. And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein -- the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."
So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it; and the fault for all that has gone wrong is ultimately with Iraqis themselves: It's a remarkable point of view to encounter in June 2013.
10 Years After the Fall of Saddam How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War - The Atlantic

You do realize that sending Americans to die by the thousands so some people in some other country can 'feel better' is not a just cause...

...a just cause for American military action is when there is a dire threat to our vital interests.

We had no vital interests in Iraq, therefore the invasion cannot be justified.

Tell that to Hillary Clinton and John Kerry who voted in the US Senate to authorize military action in Iraq.

Do you I think I care if a Democrat was wrong? All I care about is the fact that I was right,

as was our President,

who incidentally is not Hillary Clinton or John Kerry.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Mustard gas doesnt produce mushroom clouds

 

[NYcarbineer]

4,000+ young American lives, tens of thousands of lost limbs and minds, thousands of destroyed families over one trillion dollars that we didn't have, and an even more destabilized Middle East.

For that?

No thanks.

1.2 million children ALIVE today because they weren't starved by Saddam's refusal to admit he DIDN"T have WMDs!
And now we know he DID!
Or how about these Iraqi's
"So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it"
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put the question to Barham Salih, the former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan's regional government and a former deputy prime minister of Iraq's federal government.
"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ... Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves. Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq. And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein -- the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."
So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it; and the fault for all that has gone wrong is ultimately with Iraqis themselves: It's a remarkable point of view to encounter in June 2013.
10 Years After the Fall of Saddam How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War - The Atlantic

You do realize that sending Americans to die by the thousands so some people in some other country can 'feel better' is not a just cause...

...a just cause for American military action is when there is a dire threat to our vital interests.

We had no vital interests in Iraq, therefore the invasion cannot be justified.

Tell the millions of people who "felt better" after the Allies, including the US went to "another country" to save them from the Germans.............TWICE!
Sadam had been telling the world he was a short time away from having a nuke. The world couldn't prove he was or was not telling the truth. The world choose not to take any chances.

We didn't enter WWII to make people feel better.

As for the nuke, why aren't you demanding we invade North Korea and Iran? Why didn't Bush invade those countries? Was that a colossal Bush failure?

 

[Theowl32]

Yeap, liberals are now all of a sudden claiming they knew he had WMDs.

They claim the inspectors had "secured" all of them.

Interesting how ISIS all of a sudden has those "secured" weapons.

Liberals are such miserable fucking liars, worthy of zero respect.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Mustard gas doesnt produce mushroom clouds

It would have been tough for Bush to make the case that old cans of mustard gas meant we had to send in the troops,

lol, the doughboys!

 

[Mac1958]

Unless they find a nuke with an address label that says "USA", the horrific cost we have paid makes this whole disaster a, uh, disaster.

And it's far from over. Great.

 

[TooTall]

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

Chemical weapons were always included under the umbrella of WMDs. Also, it has been proven that saddam deliberately put out information that he was trying to establish nuclear capability.

His two son in laws revealed a long time ago that saddam was trying to get nuclear weapons. They were executed.

Nolo contendere.

Finding chemical weapons there was no surprise.

Finding nuclear weapons (or precursor components) would have validated the 2003 casus belli for invading Iraq.

Unfortunately, that never happened.

Again,, chemical weapons are certainly WMDs. Also, saddam put out false information (most likely on purpose) that he was in the process of attempting to get nuclear materials. That was probably true. He saw Iran as a true threat and he knew he would be in real danger if Iran became a nuclear power.

Again, his two son in laws revealed what he was wanting to do and the reasons why he kept his infrastructure for WMD production.

This was also clearly revealed by UNSCOM the UN independent council.

You seem to be operating under the impression that I do not include chemical weapons under the WMD banner.

I do, indeed, include chemical weapons under the WMD banner.

I merely hold that the casus belli (the reason for going to war) for the Iraq War was NUCLEAR weapons - and their pursuit by the Iraq regime of those times.

This is not up for debate - this is a documented historical fact.

It is also a documented historical fact that no such weapons - nor their weaponized precursor components - were ever found.

Creating a condition in which the casus belli for the Iraq War proved to be false.

This, too, is not up for debate - this is a documented historical fact.

It was a false alarm - and, quite possibly, an intentionally contrived falsehood.

I don't like that any more than you do, but it is what it is.

I would very much like a link to that documented historical fact, because I believe it is BS

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yeap, liberals are now all of a sudden claiming they knew he had WMDs.

They claim the inspectors had "secured" all of them.

Interesting how ISIS all of a sudden has those "secured" weapons.

Liberals are such miserable fucking liars, worthy of zero respect.

So if ISIS has them, that means Bush failed! lol, you can't win, shut up.

 

[Redfish]

4,000+ young American lives, tens of thousands of lost limbs and minds, thousands of destroyed families over one trillion dollars that we didn't have, and an even more destabilized Middle East.

For that?

No thanks.

you are correct. What is also correct is that both parties authorized and funded that lunacy. They all have blood on their hands------------every fricken one of them from both parties.

 

[Redfish]

Yeap, liberals are now all of a sudden claiming they knew he had WMDs.

They claim the inspectors had "secured" all of them.

Interesting how ISIS all of a sudden has those "secured" weapons.

Liberals are such miserable fucking liars, worthy of zero respect.

So if ISIS has them, that means Bush failed! lol, you can't win, shut up.

Nope, it means that the USA failed.

 

[Theowl32]

Yeap, liberals are now all of a sudden claiming they knew he had WMDs.

They claim the inspectors had "secured" all of them.

Interesting how ISIS all of a sudden has those "secured" weapons.

Liberals are such miserable fucking liars, worthy of zero respect.

So if ISIS has them, that means Bush failed! lol, you can't win, shut up.

Yeah, the chemical weapons saddam had and were hidden and not secured are now in the hands of ISIS.

I love how you claimed the glorious UN secured them, how obama (btw knew about this intelligence that the chemical weapons were used as the article points out and the real reason why obama never called for an investigation) withdrew and destabilized the region and made all of our gains worth nothing.

Now the world is crumbling, and it is all on obama and the morons like you he placates.

You are a fucking walking contradiction.

 

[healthmyths]

and they were right!!!

There are important things to consider about this:

1) There was no intelligence gatherrd during the Bush administration that the weapons existed. The weapons inspections by the UN reflected this.
2) Released documents show that Bush intentionally mislead the American public about his intention to go to war.
3) Saddam did not use any of these weapons at the time.

Sure we found weapons, but that doesn't change the fact that the war was fraudulent.

So tell me why then Saddam "knowing" that the USA was wrong about Iraq having WMDs, would allow
In five years 576,000 children starved ........BECAUSE SADDAM refused to certify WMD destruction!
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - New York Times

Why would any leader allow his people to starve rather then tell the truth i.e. certify that Iraq's WMDs were destroyed?
Idiots say he did so because HE didn't think the USA would have the balls to Liberate Iraq BUT he did fear Iran would if Saddam said he'd
destroyed WMDs invade Iraq.
In either event why would we let any leader of any country with the dozens of human rights, violations, the KNOWN use of WMDs on his own people, the destruction of Mesopotamia and displacement of 500,000 of his people continue to starve 100,000 children a year?
You and other Saddam lovers keep glossing over the tremendous compassion the USA side benefit of keeping 1.2 million children from starving because Saddam wouldn't agree to certify the destruction of WMDs.

Does any compassionate real person EVER believe any leader would let 100,000+ a year children starve???

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yeap, liberals are now all of a sudden claiming they knew he had WMDs.

They claim the inspectors had "secured" all of them.

Interesting how ISIS all of a sudden has those "secured" weapons.

Liberals are such miserable fucking liars, worthy of zero respect.

So if ISIS has them, that means Bush failed! lol, you can't win, shut up.

Yeah, the chemical weapons saddam had and were hidden and not secured are now in the hands of ISIS.

I love how you claimed the glorious UN secured them, how obama (btw knew about this intelligence that the chemical weapons were used as the article points out and the real reason why obama never called for an investigation) withdrew and destabilized the region and made all of our gains worth nothing.

Now the world is crumbling, and it is all on obama and the morons like you he placates.

You are a fucking walking contradiction.

Bush destabilized the region. Saddam certainly wasn't giving his leftover chemical weapons to terrorists who wanted to take over his country.

 

[elektra]

War, how terrible, there is a war, its the war the Liberals are waging, everything is under attack, they will never stop, they are vermin. Its in everything they post, the Liberals attack, and its a vile attack. Every thread they start is an attack, every post. They never admit mistakes, they never look back, its a battle forward, and they are winning, because most people have no idea what is going on. Democrats even unwittingly join the Liberals, they have become one and the same, and there only goal is to destroy all we have built, so upon the ashes they can say, I told you so, we Liberal/Democrats are superior.

Liberal/Democrats, they got mad when we killed one of their own, their brother, their ideology, Saddam.

 

[NYcarbineer]

and they were right!!!

There are important things to consider about this:

1) There was no intelligence gatherrd during the Bush administration that the weapons existed. The weapons inspections by the UN reflected this.
2) Released documents show that Bush intentionally mislead the American public about his intention to go to war.
3) Saddam did not use any of these weapons at the time.

Sure we found weapons, but that doesn't change the fact that the war was fraudulent.

So tell me why then Saddam "knowing" that the USA was wrong about Iraq having WMDs, would allow
In five years 576,000 children starved ........BECAUSE SADDAM refused to certify WMD destruction!
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - New York Times

Why would any leader allow his people to starve rather then tell the truth i.e. certify that Iraq's WMDs were destroyed?
Idiots say he did so because HE didn't think the USA would have the balls to Liberate Iraq BUT he did fear Iran would if Saddam said he'd
destroyed WMDs invade Iraq.
In either event why would we let any leader of any country with the dozens of human rights, violations, the KNOWN use of WMDs on his own people, the destruction of Mesopotamia and displacement of 500,000 of his people continue to starve 100,000 children a year?
You and other Saddam lovers keep glossing over the tremendous compassion the USA side benefit of keeping 1.2 million children from starving because Saddam wouldn't agree to certify the destruction of WMDs.

Does any compassionate real person EVER believe any leader would let 100,000+ a year children starve???

Hunger half way around the world is not a vital interest to the US. If it were, we'd have been in every war in Africa for decades.

Is that what you want?

 

[mudwhistle]

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

I thought it was "weapons of mass destruction." That includes chemical weapons. I could be wrong, but I don't recall them specifying the exact type of weapon, just WMDs.

weap·on of mass de·struc·tion
noun
plural noun: weapons of mass destruction

1. a chemical, biological or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction.

Everybody on the face of the planet already know that Saddam had chemical weapons - for years prior to the invasion - dog bites man.

Everybody on the face of the planet already knew that Saddam had biological weapons - for years prior to the invasion - dog bites man.

What tipped the scales in favor of invasion was the third leg of the weapons triad - nuclear weapons - man bites dog.

Supposed yellow-cake uranium shipments from South Africa and highly advanced research and materials-processing facilities and knowledge-base.

Nobody went to war to take Saddam's chemical weapons away from him - that was old news, predating the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.

Nobody went to war to take Saddam biological weapons away form him - that was old news, predating the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.

People went to war to stop Saddam from developing and deploying nuclear weapons - a supposed new state of affairs.

Doesn't matter how the arguments for the casus belli were formalized, at the UN, or, more loosely, amongst the American People.

What DOES matter is the focus of the arguments leading up to the formalizing of the casus belli.

And that focus was nuclear weaponry - the NEW element in the weapons triad that could be made to serve as the flash-point for an alarm, sufficient to go to war over.

You know that just as well as I do, whether you choose to concede the point here or not.

Lest we forget.

IMHO, to overlook that fact is to do a grave injustice to the shades of our war dead, and living spirit of those who served and suffered and survived that largely avoidable and tragic mistake.

We kicked ass, alright, during the early going - kudos, over and over again, to our wonderful boys and girls who served.

But it's OK to raise eyebrows at those who put them into harms' way on such a threadbare and highly questionable rationale.

I see you're still ignoring all of that nuke material found in Iraq.

This means only one thing.

You're full of yellow-cake.

 

[Moonglow]

4,000+ young American lives, tens of thousands of lost limbs and minds, thousands of destroyed families over one trillion dollars that we didn't have, and an even more destabilized Middle East.

For that?

No thanks.

1.2 million children ALIVE today because they weren't starved by Saddam's refusal to admit he DIDN"T have WMDs!
And now we know he DID!
Or how about these Iraqi's
"So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it"
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put the question to Barham Salih, the former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan's regional government and a former deputy prime minister of Iraq's federal government.
"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ... Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves. Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq. And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein -- the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."
So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it; and the fault for all that has gone wrong is ultimately with Iraqis themselves: It's a remarkable point of view to encounter in June 2013.
10 Years After the Fall of Saddam How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War - The Atlantic

You do realize that sending Americans to die by the thousands so some people in some other country can 'feel better' is not a just cause...

...a just cause for American military action is when there is a dire threat to our vital interests.

We had no vital interests in Iraq, therefore the invasion cannot be justified.

Tell the millions of people who "felt better" after the Allies, including the US went to "another country" to save them from the Germans.............TWICE!
Sadam had been telling the world he was a short time away from having a nuke. The world couldn't prove he was or was not telling the truth. The world choose not to take any chances.

The why do the Ruskies get away with so much?

North Korea?