• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Maybe W was right?

NobleSavage

NobleSavage

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2003
Messages
3,079
Location
127.0.0.1
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
This isn't evidence of a nuclear bomb as Colin Powell warned the UN about. However, it seams Iraq did have chemical weapons.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...s-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?smid=tw-share

Granted, Rumsfeld helped Iraq get chemical weapons in the first place. If you take a long term view most of the problems in the middle east are due to our meddling (or the British). I believe the CIA calls it blow back.
 
Not really.

These are chemical weapons left over from the 80's. There was an article years ago about finding an old cache of them. The shells are old, more likely to burst in the artillery cannon then actually fire, and the chemicals degraded so they are nowhere near as lethal as they used to be. Not the weapons we were told would be there. This is more about ignoring the soldiers long term health problems cause by exposure to these chemicals, similar to how the medical problems of 9/11 first responders were ignored.
 
I was always waiting to hear the Bush Administration say "We know he has weapons of mass destruction, because we gave them to him. How much more evidence do we need than that?"
 
The 2nd Gulf war was predicated on the claim that Saddam had WMD's and was increasing his capacity to create more. If there had been the slightest trace of a functional WMD(chemical or nuclear), or the capacity to make one, it would have all been paraded down Pennsylvania Avenue, with GW riding on top.
 
"Of course we know Iraq has WMDs. We kept the receipts."

--old joke
 
NobleSavage said:
This isn't evidence of a nuclear bomb as Colin Powell warned the UN about. However, it seams Iraq did have chemical weapons.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...s-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?smid=tw-share

Granted, Rumsfeld helped Iraq get chemical weapons in the first place. If you take a long term view most of the problems in the middle east are due to our meddling (or the British). I believe the CIA calls it blow back.
Click to expand...
While toxic and not safe to handle, they weren't weaponized anymore and were useless.
 
Cheney said unequivocally that they had evidence Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program.

Powell talked about mobile chemical weapons trucks that never existed. He talked about anthrax.

Most assuredly W was not right.

Iraq posed no unusual threat. It was well contained.

The invasion was about Iraqi oil, nothing else. It was about the US wanting to control Iraqi oil. It was pure greed nothing else.
 
NobleSavage said:
Why didn't we get any oil?
Click to expand...

The best laid plans. The planners had no idea the country would erupt into sectarian violence. They knew very little. They thought they would invade put a puppet government into place and that would be the end of it.

What didn't the Bush administration fuck up?
 
NobleSavage said:
Why didn't we get any oil?
Click to expand...

Do you think it would have really helped? W was wrong about literally everything regarding Iraq...including the oil he thought his friends would get at a good price....just a few thousand American lives.
 
The oil wasn't for us. It was for the poor oil companies, who were gracious to sell it on the Free Market at only a major markup.
 
arkirk said:
NobleSavage said:
Why didn't we get any oil?
Click to expand...

Do you think it would have really helped? W was wrong about literally everything regarding Iraq...including the oil he thought his friends would get at a good price....just a few thousand American lives.
Click to expand...

I think W got talked into it by Cheney and his PNAC staff. The idea was to OWN a strategic piece real estate in the Middle East. Yeah, oil was part of it, but I think a minor part.

We built the world's largest and most expensive embassy in Baghdad. It's the size of Vatican city. We planed on staying a long time. Not to mention we spent $90 billion on reconstruction (Yeah, most of it was wasted and yes most of it benefited US contractors). If we were just after the oil I don't think the powers in charge would have messed with all that.
 
marc said:
The oil wasn't for us. It was for the poor oil companies, who were gracious to sell it on the Free Market at only a major markup.
Click to expand...

We found no WMD. We left no freedom.

BUT..............................some people got filthy rich.

For the oligarchy, that is the whole idea of everything.

They reached out to control the oil but everybody knew what they were doing. Nobody bought their Iraqi freedom crap for a second.

Here we come to free you. Don't mind the bombs.
 
NobleSavage said:
This isn't evidence of a nuclear bomb as Colin Powell warned the UN about. However, it seams Iraq did have chemical weapons.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...s-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?smid=tw-share

Granted, Rumsfeld helped Iraq get chemical weapons in the first place. If you take a long term view most of the problems in the middle east are due to our meddling (or the British). I believe the CIA calls it blow back.
Click to expand...

Wow, you rightists just won't give up, will you?

No matter how thoroughly your positions are debunked, you still hold out hope for His Holiness Darth Jar-Jar, don't you?
 
Underseer said:
NobleSavage said:
This isn't evidence of a nuclear bomb as Colin Powell warned the UN about. However, it seams Iraq did have chemical weapons.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...s-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?smid=tw-share

Granted, Rumsfeld helped Iraq get chemical weapons in the first place. If you take a long term view most of the problems in the middle east are due to our meddling (or the British). I believe the CIA calls it blow back.
Click to expand...

Wow, you rightists just won't give up, will you?

No matter how thoroughly your positions are debunked, you still hold out hope for His Holiness Darth Jar-Jar, don't you?
Click to expand...

Relax, I'm not a rightist. I just saw the NYT article (they are fairly credible and liberal) and thought I'd post it.
 
NobleSavage said:
However, it seams Iraq did have chemical weapons.
Click to expand...


And they did such a good job burying them and any evidence of them that it took a full blown US invasion and a considerable amount of digging before anyone (apparently by accident) stumbled upon the remnants.


We knew Iraq had at one time possessed a stockpile of chemical weapons, but this report indicates that after the first time we decimated their military capacity the regime essentially said "oh fuck we'd better hide all this chemical weapons stuff or else we're doubly screwed."

Instead of having an active WMD program, Saddam's regime actually went out of their way to obliterate the weapons they did have. I mean, they literally buried their WMDs over 20 years ago.
 
NobleSavage said:
Ok, you can quit criticizing me now. I get the point. I never knew the particulars.
Click to expand...
Which is what helped get 10,000 American soldiers maimed or killed and over 100,000 Iraqis slaughtered in sectarian violence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom