Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?

[Too Tall]

If Bush lied to the American People about WMD, then What were the Democrats telling US about WMD in Iraq between 1996 and leading up to the invasion in 2003?

Remember when Saddam was our friend? And when American companies sold Saddam the material he needed to make chemical weapons? Remember that? So he could use them on the Kurds.

Where were we when we absolutely knew he had them and was using them? We didn't invade then.
Why not?

No Bush used the EXCUSE of Saddam to go to war for a reason that you or I haven't been told.

Actually, Saddam used a lot more chemical weapons on the Iranians during the war with them than he did on the Kurds.

We didn't invade him because he had not yet invaded Kuwait, and was not a threat to the rest of the middle east oil supply until then.

Here is a list of suppliers to Saddam:

All told, 52% of Iraq's international chemical weapon equipment was of German origin.
Around 21% of Iraq’s international chemical weapon equipment was French.
About 100 tons of mustard gas also came from Brazil.
The United Kingdom paid for a chlorine factory that was intended to be used for manufacturing mustard gas
An Austrian company gave Iraq calutrons for enriching uranium. The nation also provided heat exchangers, tanks, condensers, and columns for the Iraqi chemical weapons infrastructure, 16% of the international sales.
Singapore gave 4,515 tons of precursors for VX, sarin, tabun, and mustard gasses to Iraq.
The Dutch gave 4,261 tons of precursors for sarin, tabun, mustard, and tear gasses to Iraq.
Egypt gave 2,400 tons of tabun and sarin precursors to Iraq and 28,500 tons of weapons designed for carrying chemical munitions.
India gave 2,343 tons of precursors to VX, tabun, Sarin, and mustard gasses.
Luxemburg gave Iraq 650 tons of mustard gas precursors.
Spain gave Iraq 57,500 munitions designed for carrying chemical weapons. In addition, they provided reactors, condensers, columns and tanks for Iraq’s chemical warfare program, 4.4% of the international sales.
China provided 45,000 munitions designed for chemical warfare.

 

[JRK]

Read my post, nothing (NOTHING) but grief and loss was the result of the Iraq invasion and occupation.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq by the Bush Administration was, is and will always remain a failure and a stain on our great nation. Only fools belief and liars contend that anything positive was gained by the death, destruction, deceit and near depression that was the result of Iraq fiasco.

Keep posting that the Iraq fiasco was anything else, and you'll keep painting yourself as a fool and a liar.

Wry that is not what I ask you
Dis agreeing with policy is your right
calling those who dis agree with you liar, fools is childish

I have not posted 1 lie and I for one do not believe removing Saddam, re moving Al Qaeda from Iraq as well as other terror organisations was not foolish
Saddam killed millions
Al Qaeda was there before we invaded building there forces, this has been confirmed in the last 2 years
Saddam was paying terrorist to kill Jews in Israel
Saddam ignored the terms of surrender HE agreed to in 1991

These are facts

You think Saddam should have been allowed to continue and Al Qaeda been allowed to build up its forces in Iraq, you have that right (why?) but that does not give you the right to attack the people who think this world is a much better place without those terrorist

It amazes me that Saddam killing millions was okay, AL Qaeda killing Iraqis along with Saddam loyalist, Iranians and other terror groups such as Chezk Muslims is your right, but to attack me (us) as though we caused all of this is fantasy

I simply answered your question. The facts are on my side, nothing was gained by the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The removal and subsequent death of Saddam is not and never will be worth the lives of our men and women killed and wounded over there.

Al Qaeda was there when we invaded
You have not answered one question except you were against the war
That is your right, but your claim that Saddam was the only reason we went there is not (all though it was a huge part)
Blair elaborates:

There is an interesting sidebar to this. It later emerged that [Abu Musab] al-Zarqawi, the deputy to bin Laden, had come to Iraq in May 2002, had had meetings with senior Iraqis and established a presence there in October 2002. This intelligence has not been withdrawn, by the way. Probably we should have paid more attention to its significance, but we were so keen not to make a false claim about al Qaeda and Saddam that we somewhat understated it, at least on the British side.

Blair’s testimony directly contradicts the Democrats. Still, in the British manner, he continues to understate the case.

Intelligence compiled by American officials, as well as the testimony of known al Qaeda associates, confirms that al Qaeda established a significant presence in Iraq prior to March 2003. The evidence that al Qaeda was in Iraq before the war is simply overwhelming. And it helps to explain why the insurgency became so lethal.

Even though Blair says it “later emerged” that Zarqawi had set up shop in Iraq in 2002, this connection was actually a formal part of the American case for war. Secretary of State Colin Powell included a section on Zarqawi’s network in Iraq in his February 5, 2003, presentation before the United Nations.

Former CIA director George Tenet reveals in his own autobiography, At the Center of the Storm, some of the intelligence that backed up Powell’s presentation. More than one dozen other al Qaeda terrorists had joined Zarqawi in Baghdad. One of them was an Egyptian known as Abu Ayyub al Masri, who had served Osama bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri, since the 1980s. After Zarqawi was killed in 2006, al Masri took his place as the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Masri himself was killed earlier this year, and his widow confirmed that they had moved to central Baghdad in 2002.

Al Qaeda in Iraq | The Weekly Standard

 

[JakeStarkey]

JRK, put a cork in it. No one is bothering to read your nonsense.

 

[JRK]

Former CIA director George Tenet reveals in his own autobiography, At the Center of the Storm, some of the intelligence that backed up Powell’s presentation. More than one dozen other al Qaeda terrorists had joined Zarqawi in Baghdad. One of them was an Egyptian known as Abu Ayyub al Masri, who had served Osama bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri, since the 1980s. After Zarqawi was killed in 2006, al Masri took his place as the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Masri himself was killed earlier this year, and his widow confirmed that they had moved to central Baghdad in 2002.

Zarqawi and al Masri led a campaign of spectacular terrorist attacks against the Iraqi people, security personnel, and coalition forces. It was their savagery that, to a large extent, brought Iraq to the brink of total chaos—and ultimately provoked the Anbar Awakening. It is crucially important, then, that Zarqawi and al Masri were operating inside Iraq before American or British forces ever set foot there. They were clearly preparing for war.

In Baghdad, Tenet says, Zarqawi’s cell found “a comfortable and secure environment” to funnel supplies and fighters to “up to two hundred” al Qaeda fighters who had relocated to camps in the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq beginning in late 2001. The camps were run by an al Qaeda affiliate named Ansar al Islam (AI), which would later play a significant role in the Iraqi insurgency. The CIA found that AI was experimenting with poisons on animals and, “in at least one case, on one of their own associates.”

Al Qaeda in Iraq | Foundation for Defense of Democracies

These facts remain UN reported by most because of the time line
Most of this was not confirmed until 2010

 

[Wry Catcher]

Wry that is not what I ask you
Dis agreeing with policy is your right
calling those who dis agree with you liar, fools is childish

I have not posted 1 lie and I for one do not believe removing Saddam, re moving Al Qaeda from Iraq as well as other terror organisations was not foolish
Saddam killed millions
Al Qaeda was there before we invaded building there forces, this has been confirmed in the last 2 years
Saddam was paying terrorist to kill Jews in Israel
Saddam ignored the terms of surrender HE agreed to in 1991

These are facts

You think Saddam should have been allowed to continue and Al Qaeda been allowed to build up its forces in Iraq, you have that right (why?) but that does not give you the right to attack the people who think this world is a much better place without those terrorist

It amazes me that Saddam killing millions was okay, AL Qaeda killing Iraqis along with Saddam loyalist, Iranians and other terror groups such as Chezk Muslims is your right, but to attack me (us) as though we caused all of this is fantasy

I simply answered your question. The facts are on my side, nothing was gained by the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The removal and subsequent death of Saddam is not and never will be worth the lives of our men and women killed and wounded over there.

Al Qaeda was there when we invaded
You have not answered one question except you were against the war
That is your right, but your claim that Saddam was the only reason we went there is not (all though it was a huge part)
Blair elaborates:

There is an interesting sidebar to this. It later emerged that [Abu Musab] al-Zarqawi, the deputy to bin Laden, had come to Iraq in May 2002, had had meetings with senior Iraqis and established a presence there in October 2002. This intelligence has not been withdrawn, by the way. Probably we should have paid more attention to its significance, but we were so keen not to make a false claim about al Qaeda and Saddam that we somewhat understated it, at least on the British side.

Blair’s testimony directly contradicts the Democrats. Still, in the British manner, he continues to understate the case.

Intelligence compiled by American officials, as well as the testimony of known al Qaeda associates, confirms that al Qaeda established a significant presence in Iraq prior to March 2003. The evidence that al Qaeda was in Iraq before the war is simply overwhelming. And it helps to explain why the insurgency became so lethal.

Even though Blair says it “later emerged” that Zarqawi had set up shop in Iraq in 2002, this connection was actually a formal part of the American case for war. Secretary of State Colin Powell included a section on Zarqawi’s network in Iraq in his February 5, 2003, presentation before the United Nations.

Former CIA director George Tenet reveals in his own autobiography, At the Center of the Storm, some of the intelligence that backed up Powell’s presentation. More than one dozen other al Qaeda terrorists had joined Zarqawi in Baghdad. One of them was an Egyptian known as Abu Ayyub al Masri, who had served Osama bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri, since the 1980s. After Zarqawi was killed in 2006, al Masri took his place as the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Masri himself was killed earlier this year, and his widow confirmed that they had moved to central Baghdad in 2002.

Al Qaeda in Iraq | The Weekly Standard

AQ wasn't the reason(s) for invading and occupying a sovereign nation. Oil was one, Saddam was an excuse and the 'plan' to invade Iraq superseded the attack of 9-11.
See:

Letter to Gingrich and Lott on Iraq

Letter to President Clinton on Iraq

Statement of Principles

 

[JRK]

I simply answered your question. The facts are on my side, nothing was gained by the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The removal and subsequent death of Saddam is not and never will be worth the lives of our men and women killed and wounded over there.

Al Qaeda was there when we invaded
You have not answered one question except you were against the war
That is your right, but your claim that Saddam was the only reason we went there is not (all though it was a huge part)
Blair elaborates:

There is an interesting sidebar to this. It later emerged that [Abu Musab] al-Zarqawi, the deputy to bin Laden, had come to Iraq in May 2002, had had meetings with senior Iraqis and established a presence there in October 2002. This intelligence has not been withdrawn, by the way. Probably we should have paid more attention to its significance, but we were so keen not to make a false claim about al Qaeda and Saddam that we somewhat understated it, at least on the British side.

Blair’s testimony directly contradicts the Democrats. Still, in the British manner, he continues to understate the case.

Intelligence compiled by American officials, as well as the testimony of known al Qaeda associates, confirms that al Qaeda established a significant presence in Iraq prior to March 2003. The evidence that al Qaeda was in Iraq before the war is simply overwhelming. And it helps to explain why the insurgency became so lethal.

Even though Blair says it “later emerged” that Zarqawi had set up shop in Iraq in 2002, this connection was actually a formal part of the American case for war. Secretary of State Colin Powell included a section on Zarqawi’s network in Iraq in his February 5, 2003, presentation before the United Nations.

Former CIA director George Tenet reveals in his own autobiography, At the Center of the Storm, some of the intelligence that backed up Powell’s presentation. More than one dozen other al Qaeda terrorists had joined Zarqawi in Baghdad. One of them was an Egyptian known as Abu Ayyub al Masri, who had served Osama bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri, since the 1980s. After Zarqawi was killed in 2006, al Masri took his place as the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Masri himself was killed earlier this year, and his widow confirmed that they had moved to central Baghdad in 2002.

Al Qaeda in Iraq | The Weekly Standard

AQ wasn't the reason(s) for invading and occupying a sovereign nation. Oil was one, Saddam was an excuse and the 'plan' to invade Iraq superseded the attack of 9-11.
See:

Letter to Gingrich and Lott on Iraq

Letter to President Clinton on Iraq

Statement of Principles

Wry Iraq was a serious issue I agree
The UN was helping them sell oil on the black market
Saddam was lying and did have munitions that were to have been destroyed including long range missiles found just prior to our invasion
But after 9-11 that changed and Yes part of our reason to remove Saddam was Al Qaeda in Iraq as stated before the UN 2/2003

 

[JRK]

The scandal engulfing the United Nations' oil-for-food program is not just a tale of a few sticky-fingered U.N. bureaucrats on the take. The program, which ran from 1996 to 2003, authorized at least $69 billion in Iraqi oil sales, supposedly to fund the purchase of food, medicine and other humanitarian necessities for Iraqis suffering under U.N. economic sanctions. Oil-for-food was the largest humanitarian relief operation in United Nations history.

In the event, it was thoroughly subverted and defrauded. Saddam Hussein diverted billions of dollars from the program as U.N. administrators looked the other way while skimming off some of the proceeds for themselves.

Sen. Norm Coleman, chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, estimates that Saddam raked off $6.7 billion from the oil-for-food program, plus another $13.7 billion by selling oil on the black market. Whether, as many suspect, Saddam used some of these billions to, in effect, bribe members of the U.N. Security Council to loosen sanctions and oppose any military action against Iraq remains to be determined.

Coleman, a political moderate and a former prosecutor, says Annan should resign "because the most extensive fraud in the history of the U.N. occurred on his watch."

Kofi Annan's dysfunctional United Nations | The San Diego Union-Tribune

 

[pwjohn]

1) REMOVE SADDAM
DONE
2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
DONE
3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS
DONE

Am missing something here?

Yes you are missing something...They now export 3 million barrels of oil per day...Some of which we receive here on the west coast...

 

[JakeStarkey]

SNIP

Nobody is reading your massive spam of lies, JRK.

 

[Luissa]

Former CIA director George Tenet reveals in his own autobiography, At the Center of the Storm, some of the intelligence that backed up Powell’s presentation. More than one dozen other al Qaeda terrorists had joined Zarqawi in Baghdad. One of them was an Egyptian known as Abu Ayyub al Masri, who had served Osama bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri, since the 1980s. After Zarqawi was killed in 2006, al Masri took his place as the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Masri himself was killed earlier this year, and his widow confirmed that they had moved to central Baghdad in 2002.

Zarqawi and al Masri led a campaign of spectacular terrorist attacks against the Iraqi people, security personnel, and coalition forces. It was their savagery that, to a large extent, brought Iraq to the brink of total chaos—and ultimately provoked the Anbar Awakening. It is crucially important, then, that Zarqawi and al Masri were operating inside Iraq before American or British forces ever set foot there. They were clearly preparing for war.

In Baghdad, Tenet says, Zarqawi’s cell found “a comfortable and secure environment” to funnel supplies and fighters to “up to two hundred” al Qaeda fighters who had relocated to camps in the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq beginning in late 2001. The camps were run by an al Qaeda affiliate named Ansar al Islam (AI), which would later play a significant role in the Iraqi insurgency. The CIA found that AI was experimenting with poisons on animals and, “in at least one case, on one of their own associates.”

Prior to the war, the CIA got much about Iraq wrong. But here is an instance where the agency got something right.

Less than one week after Secretary of State Colin Powell made the case for war with Saddam’s Iraq based on the CIA’s intelligence, Osama bin Laden decided to make his own case for war. Bin Laden, however, was on Saddam’s side.

In an audiotape released on February 11, 2003, bin Laden explained why. “It is true that Saddam is a thief and an apostate, but the solution is not to be found in moving the government of Iraq from a local thief to a foreign one,” bin Laden argued. “There is no harm in such circumstances if the Muslims’ interests coincide with those of the socialists in fighting the Crusaders, despite our firm conviction that they are infidels.  .  .  .  There is nothing wrong with a convergence of interests here.”

Bin Laden’s message was clear. Saddam may be a socialist “infidel,” but he is preferable to the United States and Britain. The terror master called on Muslims to fight alongside Saddam’s forces. And Saddam himself clearly saw a “convergence of interests” as well.

In an interview with Agence France-Presse in 2004, Hudayfa Azzam said that Saddam had welcomed al Qaeda “with open arms” and “strictly and directly” controlled their activities inside Iraq. Azzam was in a position to know. He is the son of one of al Qaeda’s earliest and most influential leaders, Abdullah Azzam, and maintained extensive contacts with al Qaeda leaders inside Iraq.

Muhammad al Masari, a Saudi who operates a known al Qaeda front in London and has helped recruit suicide bombers to fight in Iraq, has offered a similar account. In his book The Secret History of al Qaeda, Abdel Bari Atwan recounts a conversation he had with al Masari. Saddam “saw that Islam would be key to the formation of a cohesive resistance in the event of invasion,” according to al Masari. Thus, Saddam funded the relocation of al Qaeda operatives to Iraqi soil. Al Masari says that Saddam also ordered officers in the Iraqi military to purchase “small plots of land from  .  .  .   farmers in Sunni areas” and then bury “arms and money caches for later use by the resistance.”

There is much more evidence in this vein, including, for instance, Iraqi intelligence documents recovered after the fall of Saddam. Some of the documents demonstrate that Saddam called on hundreds of terrorists from around the Middle East to come to Iraq in the months leading up to the war. Many of them had been trained by Saddam’s regime beginning in the late 1990s. In early 2003, Saddam opened his border with Syria to allow this stream of terrorists in. In one recovered document, Saddam ordered his military to “utilize” Arab suicide bombers against the invading forces. This was almost certainly a reference to al Qaeda.

All of this may sound like a belated attempt to relitigate the case for war. It is not. Reasonable people can differ on how to handle Saddam’s prewar sponsorship of terrorists, including al Qaeda. Tony Blair does not present Saddam’s terrorist ties as a major justification for war. By the same token, it is simply false to claim, as Obama and the Democrats have, that Al Qaeda in Iraq “didn’t exist before our invasion.”

Al Qaeda in Iraq | Foundation for Defense of Democracies

These facts remain UN reported by most because of the time line
Most of this was not confirmed until 2010

Please edit your post or I will. You know the copyright rules. Thanks

 

[Luissa]

I couldn't post in red because of your insanely long post, and my iPhone. So please edit soon.

 

[Too Tall]

The housing collapse and the the war worked together to damage the economy.

Please do not mistake conscription with the Guard and Reserve. The Guard and Reserve were created for emergencies, local and regional and international, but not to the extent that the personnel were envisioned to serve two and more tours overseas over a period of years. As an aside: a voluntary no-draft force gives the President a private military to do with as he pleases with little restraint by a Congress dominated by his own Party.

The neo-cons should not make false claims that they are upholding UN resolutions, when in fact the US was failing in neo-con attempts to remake the ME into an America friendly zone. The fact is this: the US is not immune to international law. Why do you think senior Bushies almost never travel to western Europe?

The Iraqi invasion will continue to develop in the American narrative as the worst-to-date of all our foreign policy initiatives.

Here is the mission of the National Guard that I served in for almost two years before going active duty. You seem to think that Guardsmen should be treated differently than the regulars when they are activated. That ain't the way it works! Once activated, a Guardsman is a full time Soldier or Airman and is treated as such. When the regulars are limited to one deployment, the Guardsmen will get the same limit.

Administered by the National Guard Bureau (a joint bureau of the departments of the Army and Air Force), the National Guard consists of both the Army National Guard (ARNG) and the Air National Guard (ANG). Both Guards have a federal and state mission, resulting in Guardsmen holding membership in both the National Guard of their state and in the U.S. Army or the U.S. Air Force. The National Guard is organized into 54 separate entities: the 50 states, the territories of Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.
The National Guard's federal mission is to maintain well-trained, well-equipped units available for prompt mobilization during war and provide assistance during national emergencies (such as natural disasters or civil disturbances). During peacetime, units carry out missions compatible with training, mobilization readiness, humanitarian and contingency operations.

Far less than half of Guardsmen were deployed more than once, and no one is forced to join the National Guard. They are part of the All Volunteer Force maintained for the defense of the US.

In the decade of conflict that followed September 11, 2001, 63 percent of the National Guardsmen deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan have deployed once, while 37 percent have deployed multiple times, according to National Guard Bureau data.

I suggest that there are any number of places in Europe that the Bush's could visit if they so desired. England, Ireland and Germany come to mind. And, GW Bush would not be arrested.

I am waiting for the outcome in Egypt and Syria to make a judgement of the worst foreign policy initiatives. Israel's continued existence is at risk.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your attitude about Guard and Reserve duties, Too Tall, reveals much as to why the morale has plummetted and the effectives has been degraded in the last ten years. Your imagination was not the intended purpose of the Guard and Reserve when organized. Your statement is a classic of neo-con failure to understand the American world.

Voluntary enlistment does not mean part of the President's praetorian guard. And take a real look and see where the senior bushies have traveled, how often, and when was the last time.

 

[BlindBoo]

It amazes me the liberal mind hates GWB but never mention the real terrorist
Saddam killed millions
tortured the same
OBL attacked this country for no other reason than to kill and maim

Yet the far left attacks the very people who permanently removed those people from earth. To claim the middle east is un stable because Saddam is dead, Al Qaeda has been broken, that is not reality

With US Support Saddams war against Iran cost millions of Arab lives.

While having US support Saddam Gasses Halabja. Reagan opposes sanctions.

OBL announced his reasons for declaring Jihad against the West. Just to kill and maim is not listed as one of his reasons. The results of our various interventions in the ME are mentioned. Iraq did not provide support for 9-11 nor did they provide cover for escaping al Queda operatives after we invaded Afghanistan as most went to Pakistan.

The Iraq invasion and occupation has been a failure on many levels.

 

[BlindBoo]

Thank you for admitting there were no WMDs.

OK, the USA won the war then lost the peace. And broke Iraq good. And nearly broke our economy. And ruined our Reserve and National Guard units with repeated tours over and over and over there,.

The UN? Show me where the UN authorized the USA to act on behalf of the UN.

Ass whopping? Sure was: our economy, our troop morale, our standing in the world, and so forth.

You neo-cons broke it all, you own it all.

yeah broke our economy, funny thing is our economy was better during the war. Thanks but you're not dealing with a high school student. What do you think the 17th resolution was for. It was the resolution that allowed Hussein to comply or ...................be dealt with. He didnt comply (as usual) and therefore action was taken. So you would have just let it go on and on and on. Sorry but what broke the economy was affirmative action housing.....giving people loans who couldnt afford the houses so we have a more "Equal" share of diversity in home ownership. Then with all these loans and people defaulting, ooops.....CRASH and with OBama failing to do ANYTHING about energy (gotta use fossil fuels now, alternative energy isnt practical right now) it's difficult for the economy to recover.

I'm sure you're ok with the UN allowing Iran to have nukes, yeah that's a great idea, except I thought liberals were big on nuclear non proliferation? So you are until a country decides to go for it and then you're like...oh whatever we were just kidding.

Let me clear ups your misconceptions.

Saddam was boxed in. Had not rebuilt his conventional army, did not reconsitute his WMD programs. Did not particpate in 9-11 and offered no succor to al Queda operatives fleeing Afghanistan.

Most of the sub prime loan that failed were made by private lenders not because of the CRA.

Energy prodution(crude oil) under President Obama is increasing.

The UN is not allowing Iran to have Nukes.

 

[BlindBoo]

If Bush lied to the American People about WMD, then What were the Democrats telling US about WMD in Iraq between 1996 and leading up to the invasion in 2003?

Remember when Saddam was our friend? And when American companies sold Saddam the material he needed to make chemical weapons? Remember that? So he could use them on the Kurds.

Where were we when we absolutely knew he had them and was using them? We didn't invade then.
Why not?

No Bush used the EXCUSE of Saddam to go to war for a reason that you or I haven't been told.

Actually, Saddam used a lot more chemical weapons on the Iranians during the war with them than he did on the Kurds.

We didn't invade him because he had not yet invaded Kuwait, and was not a threat to the rest of the middle east oil supply until then.

Here is a list of suppliers to Saddam:

All told, 52% of Iraq's international chemical weapon equipment was of German origin.
Around 21% of Iraq’s international chemical weapon equipment was French.
About 100 tons of mustard gas also came from Brazil.
The United Kingdom paid for a chlorine factory that was intended to be used for manufacturing mustard gas
An Austrian company gave Iraq calutrons for enriching uranium. The nation also provided heat exchangers, tanks, condensers, and columns for the Iraqi chemical weapons infrastructure, 16% of the international sales.
Singapore gave 4,515 tons of precursors for VX, sarin, tabun, and mustard gasses to Iraq.
The Dutch gave 4,261 tons of precursors for sarin, tabun, mustard, and tear gasses to Iraq.
Egypt gave 2,400 tons of tabun and sarin precursors to Iraq and 28,500 tons of weapons designed for carrying chemical munitions.
India gave 2,343 tons of precursors to VX, tabun, Sarin, and mustard gasses.
Luxemburg gave Iraq 650 tons of mustard gas precursors.
Spain gave Iraq 57,500 munitions designed for carrying chemical weapons. In addition, they provided reactors, condensers, columns and tanks for Iraq’s chemical warfare program, 4.4% of the international sales.
China provided 45,000 munitions designed for chemical warfare.

Most of which would not have been sold to Iraq if it was on the list of nations who supported terrorist.

Wonder how much of the 4 billion in loans the US (taxpayers) gave Saddam was use to purchase the above items.

 

[Too Tall]

Remember when Saddam was our friend? And when American companies sold Saddam the material he needed to make chemical weapons? Remember that? So he could use them on the Kurds.

Where were we when we absolutely knew he had them and was using them? We didn't invade then.
Why not?

No Bush used the EXCUSE of Saddam to go to war for a reason that you or I haven't been told.

Actually, Saddam used a lot more chemical weapons on the Iranians during the war with them than he did on the Kurds.

We didn't invade him because he had not yet invaded Kuwait, and was not a threat to the rest of the middle east oil supply until then.

Here is a list of suppliers to Saddam:

All told, 52% of Iraq's international chemical weapon equipment was of German origin.
Around 21% of Iraq’s international chemical weapon equipment was French.
About 100 tons of mustard gas also came from Brazil.
The United Kingdom paid for a chlorine factory that was intended to be used for manufacturing mustard gas
An Austrian company gave Iraq calutrons for enriching uranium. The nation also provided heat exchangers, tanks, condensers, and columns for the Iraqi chemical weapons infrastructure, 16% of the international sales.
Singapore gave 4,515 tons of precursors for VX, sarin, tabun, and mustard gasses to Iraq.
The Dutch gave 4,261 tons of precursors for sarin, tabun, mustard, and tear gasses to Iraq.
Egypt gave 2,400 tons of tabun and sarin precursors to Iraq and 28,500 tons of weapons designed for carrying chemical munitions.
India gave 2,343 tons of precursors to VX, tabun, Sarin, and mustard gasses.
Luxemburg gave Iraq 650 tons of mustard gas precursors.
Spain gave Iraq 57,500 munitions designed for carrying chemical weapons. In addition, they provided reactors, condensers, columns and tanks for Iraq’s chemical warfare program, 4.4% of the international sales.
China provided 45,000 munitions designed for chemical warfare.

Most of which would not have been sold to Iraq if it was on the list of nations who supported terrorist.

Wonder how much of the 4 billion in loans the US (taxpayers) gave Saddam was use to purchase the above items.

If that is true, why were you blaming the US for selling precursors to Saddam? All of our allies were and in a lot larger quantities.

That would be the mythical $4 billion that Saddam never did get.

You believe all of the other Bush haters made up crap don't you?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because, Too Tall, we should not have sold the precursors, much of what was done under Reagan's people,.

 

[Too Tall]

Your attitude about Guard and Reserve duties, Too Tall, reveals much as to why the morale has plummetted and the effectives has been degraded in the last ten years. Your imagination was not the intended purpose of the Guard and Reserve when organized. Your statement is a classic of neo-con failure to understand the American world.

Voluntary enlistment does not mean part of the President's praetorian guard. And take a real look and see where the senior bushies have traveled, how often, and when was the last time.

I was in the Guard for two years and that was not in my imagination. I did get the previous quote from this web site if you are interested in the real world.

\http://www.arng.army.mil/SiteCollec...ets/ARNG_Factsheet_May_06 ARNG fact Sheet.pdf

And, your uneducated remark about the President's praetorian guard is absurd on its face. Do you really want a list of all of the Democrats that voted for the war and were commenting for several years about Saddam WMD's? I do have them on file.

Actually, you are a Bush hater and should be ashamed of your self.

Do you have any comments on the current administration's tripling the number of troops in Afghanistan?

Here is a quote that might interest you and would certainly affect troop morale. The date of this report is August 16,2010. It is now almost 2 years later.

575. That’s how many U.S. soldiers have lost their lives in the Afghanistan war since Barack Obama became President at noon on January 20, 2009, according to the icasualties.org website, which tracks U.S. soldiers’ deaths using reports received from the Department of Defense — and which is widely cited in the media as a source of information on U.S. deaths.

According to the same website, 575 is also the number of U.S. soldiers who lost their lives in the Afghanistan war during the Presidency of George W. Bush.

Therefore, total U.S. deaths in Afghanistan have doubled in Afghanistan under President Obama, and when the next U.S. soldier is reported dead, the majority of U.S. deaths in Afghanistan will have occurred under President Obama.

 

[Too Tall]

Because, Too Tall, we should not have sold the precursors, much of what was done under Reagan's people,.

But, but, but Jake, you said Iraq was not on the list of nations that supported terrorists. Is there a double standard for the US as compared to all of our allies?