WTF??!! WMD's after all!!!!

[JakeStarkey]

Sada has no cred, like you have no cred, and both of you don't count.

Bush and the after action reports do.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

General Sada says you are all wrong, even Bush himself, and as the General in charge of Saddam's movement of all WMD's, he should know.... But you 's may continue to speak as if YOU were there, as he was, and you know!

Georges Sada retired from the Iraqi Air Force in 1991.

So he wasn't "there", either.

 

[Vigilante]

Sada has no cred, like you have no cred, and both of you don't count.

Bush and the after action reports do.

Snarky, YOU have no credibility.... and what years were you there examining the WMD Sada loaded onto planes to Syria, mentioning in his book that they were taken to the location that was the site of Syria's NUCLEAR reactor that Israel bombed into sand back in 2007!

 

[JakeStarkey]

My sister, a far right winger in the insurance industry, had a deep belief in critical thinking, and she used to upset her peers political and business wise with her replies of, "no, go study the evidence," to their stupid comments on ACA.

This applies Vigilante and almost everything he posts: Vigi, go study the evidence.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Okay, all you Bush haters, explain this.


Reports: U.S. Kept Intelligence on Iraqi Chemical Weapons Secret


As far back as 2003, American soldiers and Iraqi police were injured by chemical weapons that were misdiagnosed and mistreated,. They found nerve-carrying rockets. Ot also means IS barbarians may be gathering up – and using – chemical weapons.


Read more @ Report U.S. Kept Mum After Finding Old Chemical Weapons in Iraq


And - US Troops Found Huge Caches Of Chemical Weapons In Iraq — And The Pentagon Tried To Keep It A Secret Read more: US Troops Found Chemical Weapons In Iraq - Business Insider

You might check the shelf life on that, Sparky.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Vigi, I know what he said, I know he retired 16 years before the bombing, I have no reason based on his statements to believe he has no critical evidence because he does not produce any.

Vigi, research, please, your statements.

 

[JoeB131]

Prior to the Halabja incident there were at least 21 documented smaller-scale chemical attacks against Iraqi Kurds, none of which prompted any serious response from the international community.[12]wiki

and he used multiple chemical agents, including nerve gas and hydrogen cyanide. Do you realize what the later effects were on those that survived and their children born?

You also realize overall anywhere from 50,00 to 182,000 kurds were killed by Saddam?

Yes, and the vast majority of them were killed with conventional weapons, with the entire world not making that big of a deal about it. In fact, most of the world considered the Kurds to be terrorists and didn't care about them.

Until Saddam started threatening their oil company profits, and suddenly, they were all crying for the Kurds.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Threads Merged.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now the Turks are killing the Kurds, and this is why we won't put major US combat units back in the ME.

The Arabs are going to have to do the heavy lifting on the ground if they don't want ISIS ISIL a consisten threat to their nation states.

 

[Vigilante]

Vigi, I know what he said, I know he retired 16 years before the bombing, I have no reason based on his statements to believe he has no critical evidence because he does not produce any.

Vigi, research, please, your statements.

He officially retired in 1986 as a two-star officer, but was later called back to active service as an Air Vice Marshall for the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. During the conflict Sada defied the orders of Saddam Hussein by refusing to execute POWs, attributing this disobedience to his strong Christian convictions. In interviews, Sada has described his attempts to persuade Saddam not to harm the prisoners (an action which would have violated the Geneva Convention and would have been a war crime): Saddam eventually relented and spared the POWs, although Sada himself was subsequently imprisoned for a time. In his book Saddam's Secrets, Sada states that Saddam did not want him harmed after his release, but wanted no further contact with him thereafter'

"Well, I want to make it clear, very clear to everybody in the world that we had the weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, and the regime used them against our Iraqi people...I know it because I have got the captains of the Iraqi airway that were my friends, and they told me these weapons of mass destruction had been moved to Syria.

This man has as much credibility as any that was close to the war!

Seems the Times today goes along with WMD being there!

 

[percysunshine]

.

Sadly, re-writing history in the age of the internet is not possible;

Bush speech to UN:
Text Of Bush Iraq Speech To U.N. - CBS News

State of the Union Speech;
President Delivers State of the Union Address

Ultimatum speech
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/18/usa.Iraq

Congressional Authorization;
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/pdf/PLAW-107publ243.pdf

Reading all of those, you will find references to chemical WMDs are all about 'stockpiles', not active programs. Repeatedly.

More importantly, there were 29 reasons put forth in the Congressional Authorization, not one of which is an isolated 'active program' clause.

Parsing real history gets more difficult as time goes on, and taking at face value what is written in the New York Times will always leave your left flank open.

.
.

 

[thereisnospoon]

We know Iraq had chemical weapons all along because we sold them to them.

That may be but the punchline for the past 9 or 10 years is that there were no WMD's. Go out and ask 100 people today and 95% of them will say no WMD's.

This isnt a thread about whether we should have went or not.........its about how crooked our government is. No wonder Obama lies every day.......he got it from Bush!!!

We're getting hosed s0ns!!! They want all this partisan bickering going on while they amass more and more government power!!

Depends on how WMD is being defined. Right now, it applies to any explosive no matter how trivial. If wea pplied current definitions of WMD abroad, eevryone would have them if they have so much as a grenade.

At the time, Iraq possibly having WMD was more in the sense they might have a nuclear or biological program. And it's not like a holy thing either as the US has one of the biggest WMD programs around.

Here we go.. Let the bullshit spin begin.
You know God damned well chemical weapons as well as biological weapons are considered WMD's..
Enough of this bullshit!

 

[Carla_Danger]

We know Iraq had chemical weapons all along because we sold them to them.

That's right! We still have the receipts!

 

[NLT]

Bush had his WMD. Obabble has his "ISIS is not islamic"...along with host of other "realities"...like the unprecedented coalition. If you don't know when you are being bullshitted you are doomed. The presence of bullshit does not necessarily mean bad decisions are about to be made. It just attempts to make you feel better about the decisions being made. You have to sort thru the bs...no matter what the situation.

Some BS is more fucked up than other BS. I can handle BS that is used to protect our country from those that mean us harm, the BS coming from this POTUS is harming our country.

 

[BullKurtz]

Once again, when invasion was imminent, what the Russian spetsnaz trucked over the border into Syria remains unknown but there were convoys and Saddam's regular border police were replaced by his RG during those crossings. Further, maybe you geniuses can tell us why if we knew Saddam didn't have WMDs, that the 3rd ID wore protective gear in that heat on the march to Baghdad. And last, Saddam's generals believed he had ABC as been clearly proven through interrogations. How good do you expect our intelligence sources to be if his own top military believed what we believed?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

We know Iraq had chemical weapons all along because we sold them to them.

That may be but the punchline for the past 9 or 10 years is that there were no WMD's. Go out and ask 100 people today and 95% of them will say no WMD's.

This isnt a thread about whether we should have went or not.........its about how crooked our government is. No wonder Obama lies every day.......he got it from Bush!!!

We're getting hosed s0ns!!! They want all this partisan bickering going on while they amass more and more government power!!

Depends on how WMD is being defined. Right now, it applies to any explosive no matter how trivial. If wea pplied current definitions of WMD abroad, eevryone would have them if they have so much as a grenade.

At the time, Iraq possibly having WMD was more in the sense they might have a nuclear or biological program. And it's not like a holy thing either as the US has one of the biggest WMD programs around.

Here we go.. Let the bullshit spin begin.
You know God damned well chemical weapons as well as biological weapons are considered WMD's..
Enough of this bullshit!

My opinion and your's are irrelevant.

Article from 2003 about how WMD is defined as a matter of US policy re: Iraq,
Hazy WMD Definitions Cato Institute

Even now US definitions of chemical weapons and whether they're WMD or not depends on political expediency. Syria's used chrlorine gas but according to the Obama administration that's not a chemical weapon.

By most definitions, tear gas is a chemical weapon yet our own police forces use that. Should we call the Hague?

WMD is a prety much meaningless term as this CNN article from 2013 illustrates well,
"WMD: From A-bombs to pressure cookers"
WMD From A-bombs to pressure cookers - CNN.com

"The U.S. knew Hussein was launching some of the worst chemical attacks in history -- and still gave him a hand"
Exclusive CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran

"In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq's war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent."

 

[JoeB131]

Here we go.. Let the bullshit spin begin.
You know God damned well chemical weapons as well as biological weapons are considered WMD's..
Enough of this bullshit!

Well, no, no one was worried Saddam had the Cutting Edge Weapon of 1914 at his disposal. They were worried about Biological and Nuclear.

Here's the problem. Chemical weapons really AREN'T a weapon of mass destruction. They really don't cause that much damage unless you use a mass barrage. Even in World War I, they only accounted for 4% of fatalities. They weren't used at all in World War II.

 

[JoeB131]

Once again, when invasion was imminent, what the Russian spetsnaz trucked over the border into Syria remains unknown but there were convoys and Saddam's regular border police were replaced by his RG during those crossings. Further, maybe you geniuses can tell us why if we knew Saddam didn't have WMDs, that the 3rd ID wore protective gear in that heat on the march to Baghdad. And last, Saddam's generals believed he had ABC as been clearly proven through interrogations. How good do you expect our intelligence sources to be if his own top military believed what we believed?

Well, to start with, we had Saddam's sons in Law, who told Scott Ritter and other inspectors that we had really gotten most of the WMD's.

We had invoices from all the countries that sold Saddam components, and compared them to what was destroyed or accounted for, and we knew we got most of them.

 

[NLT]

Here we go.. Let the bullshit spin begin.
You know God damned well chemical weapons as well as biological weapons are considered WMD's..
Enough of this bullshit!

Well, no, no one was worried Saddam had the Cutting Edge Weapon of 1914 at his disposal. They were worried about Biological and Nuclear.

Here's the problem. Chemical weapons really AREN'T a weapon of mass destruction. They really don't cause that much damage unless you use a mass barrage. Even in World War I, they only accounted for 4% of fatalities. They weren't used at all in World War II.

tell that to the kurds fuckstick

 

[percysunshine]

Here we go.. Let the bullshit spin begin.
You know God damned well chemical weapons as well as biological weapons are considered WMD's..
Enough of this bullshit!

Well, no, no one was worried Saddam had the Cutting Edge Weapon of 1914 at his disposal. They were worried about Biological and Nuclear.

Here's the problem. Chemical weapons really AREN'T a weapon of mass destruction. They really don't cause that much damage unless you use a mass barrage. Even in World War I, they only accounted for 4% of fatalities. They weren't used at all in World War II.

From a practical perspective, what is your opinion of the effects of VX vs. say, Ebola?

If you had a choice, which one would you choose?

.