I hope that this is not true based on the destruction these monsters could carry out with any type of WMD. On the other hand part of me hopes it is so we can shove the truth up the liberals collective arses.
QuoteBAGHDAD — President Obama is currently meeting privately with his cabinet to discuss the news from Iraq that ISIS has discovered scores of Weapons of Mass Destruction that Saddam Hussein had hidden before the start of the US Invasion in 2003. The UN security council is scheduled to meet for an emergency session.
http://www.politicalears.com/blog/bush-exonerated-isis-uncovers-weapons-of-mass-destruction-in-iraq/ (http://www.politicalears.com/blog/bush-exonerated-isis-uncovers-weapons-of-mass-destruction-in-iraq/)
Quote from: Bowhntr on August 26, 2014, 07:26:08 AM
I hope that this is not true based on the destruction these monsters could carry out with any type of WMD. On the other hand part of me hopes it is so we can shove the truth up the liberals collective arses.
http://www.politicalears.com/blog/bush-exonerated-isis-uncovers-weapons-of-mass-destruction-in-iraq/ (http://www.politicalears.com/blog/bush-exonerated-isis-uncovers-weapons-of-mass-destruction-in-iraq/)
lol, Obama will have to go into Iraq to get the WMD. Now that's funny.
Quote from: Bowhntr on August 26, 2014, 07:26:08 AM
I hope that this is not true based on the destruction these monsters could carry out with any type of WMD. On the other hand part of me hopes it is so we can shove the truth up the liberals collective arses.
I need more info. The article doesn't quote any sources and most of the blogs are dated in early June, with residual commentary into July.
Global Security's site has nothing on it. There's no better go-to place for WMD news:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/ (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/)
Somebody --- anybody --- find Hans Blix and shove his UN inspections where Allah's moon will not shine.
It's one of those disgusting satire sites. Nothing is sacred to those #&^%^$#!
If something is too good to be true then it probably isn't, it would be perfect timing though. In anycase WMD was just one of the reasons Rumsfeld gave Bush to invade Iraq, for posterity sake he made a big mistake focusing only on WMD's.
Quote from: actionblock on August 26, 2014, 12:35:20 PM
It's one of those disgusting satire sites. Nothing is sacred to those #&^%^$#!
Are you sure? I tried to find out, but there is nothing indicating they are via a search.
Quote from: AndyJackson on August 26, 2014, 07:27:41 AM
lol, Obama will have to go into Iraq to get the WMD. Now that's funny.
Talk about chickens coming home to roost.
Quote from: Mountainshield on August 26, 2014, 01:19:47 PM
If something is too good to be true then it probably isn't, it would be perfect timing though. In anycase WMD was just one of the reasons Rumsfeld gave Bush to invade Iraq, for posterity sake he made a big mistake focusing only on WMD's.
True, the focus was a mistake. However, let's not forget that Saddam spent the entire CLINTON administration thumbing his nose at the conditions of the cease fire from Desert Shield.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/09/isis-seizes-chemical-weapons-plant-muthanna-iraq (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/09/isis-seizes-chemical-weapons-plant-muthanna-iraq)
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-19/did-saddam-have-wmds-after-all-isis-overruns-iraq-chemical-weapons-mega-facility (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-19/did-saddam-have-wmds-after-all-isis-overruns-iraq-chemical-weapons-mega-facility)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-173198/Weapons-mass-destruction-found.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-173198/Weapons-mass-destruction-found.html)
Quote from: quiller on August 26, 2014, 11:20:12 AM
Somebody --- anybody --- find Hans Blix and shove his UN inspections where Allah's moon will not shine.
Allah's moon?!! Allah doesn't moon. And, according to the Koran, suggesting that He does is blasphemy!
:popcorn: Let the beheadings begin.
Despite what we''re hearing in the media, the weapons they seized are still viable according to the UN report.
Quote8. The screening of samples of chemical agents taken by the Special Commission
from various types of munitions and storage containers during the period 1991 - 1994
showed that the nerve agents had degraded to various levels and that the agent
content was generally below 10 per cent and sometimes below 1 per cent. In a few
cases, the purity of nerve agents remained around 20 to 30 per cent, and in one case
inspectors identified tabun with a purity of 44 per cent.
Quote from: Bowhntr on August 26, 2014, 02:08:24 PM
True, the focus was a mistake. However, let's not forget that Saddam spent the entire CLINTON administration thumbing his nose at the conditions of the cease fire from Desert Shield.
Not to mention carrying out acts of war against the United States and it's allies in the region.
But hey we're supposed to overlook that, because the libs don't like Bush. :wink:
We know Saddam had WMD's. we all watched the convoys moving them to the Syrian border. We all know Saddam funded terrorist activity.
We all know what is happening now, the disconnect, the disinterest is the same thing that was done under the Clinton admin and even the beginning of the Bush admin. They didn't take Al-Qaeda seriously enough until it was to late and then even after 9/11 they wouldn't allow the American people to be reminded visually of the horrors of that day and what our disinterest can cost us. Our borders are wide open, god only knows what's already here.
Its going to happen again, but I fear this time will be much worse.
Quote from: Solar on August 26, 2014, 07:25:36 PM
Despite what we''re hearing in the media, the weapons they seized are still viable according to the UN report.
All of what you quoted actually means they aren't viable. The less purity, the more corrupted.
What's more since these were made in '91 at the latest, so all of the stockpile is expired. Best case scenario 3-5 years for sarin and VX, it's been over 20, and the captured examples we got both in '91 and 2003 told us they had lifespans likely amounting to a few weeks as they were so poorly manufactured and contained.
The facility ISIS captured btw, is pretty much a parking lot. We bombed it, and the Iraqis stripped or buried most of what was left. What remains, are poorly maintained bunkers. (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MmTzwE1tp_U)
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 26, 2014, 09:57:35 PM
All of what you quoted actually means they aren't viable. The less purity, the more corrupted.
What's more since these were made in '91 at the latest, so all of the stockpile is expired. Best case scenario 3-5 years for sarin and VX, it's been over 20, and the captured examples we got both in '91 and 2003 told us they had lifespans likely amounting to a few weeks as they were so poorly manufactured and contained.
The facility ISIS captured btw, is pretty much a parking lot. We bombed it, and the Iraqis stripped or buried most of what was left. What remains, are poorly maintained bunkers. (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MmTzwE1tp_U)
Irrelevant.
^ the stockpile is irrelevant. The insurgents got at it too, and they failed to weaponize it.
The chemicals are expired, still toxic, but more a threat to those who handle them than those they'd wish to use it on.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 26, 2014, 10:05:59 PM
^ the stockpile is irrelevant. The insurgents got at it too, and they failed to weaponize it.
The chemicals are expired, still toxic, but more a threat to those who handle them than those they'd wish to use it on.
Whether or not they are usable is not relevant.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 26, 2014, 11:00:23 PM
Whether or not they are usable is not relevant.
Then I don't understand, what is?
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 26, 2014, 09:57:35 PM
All of what you quoted actually means they aren't viable. The less purity, the more corrupted.
What's more since these were made in '91 at the latest, so all of the stockpile is expired. Best case scenario 3-5 years for sarin and VX, it's been over 20, and the captured examples we got both in '91 and 2003 told us they had lifespans likely amounting to a few weeks as they were so poorly manufactured and contained.
The facility ISIS captured btw, is pretty much a parking lot. We bombed it, and the Iraqis stripped or buried most of what was left. What remains, are poorly maintained bunkers. (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MmTzwE1tp_U)
I think I'll get me some of Saddam's 'expired' Sarin and send you a teaspoon or so to mix with your morning granola. I trust you'll let us know how things turn out.
^why go so far? I could approximate the current toxicity with household rat poison and industrial cleaners. :tounge:
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 27, 2014, 12:29:54 AM
^why go so far? I could approximate the current toxicity with household rat poison and industrial cleaners. :tounge:
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 26, 2014, 10:05:59 PM
^ the stockpile is irrelevant. The insurgents got at it too, and they failed to weaponize it.
The chemicals are expired, still toxic, but more a threat to those who handle them than those they'd wish to use it on.
Oh right, and that makes IS less formidable, because they don't use suicide bombers or employ people with no regards for their own lives. Even a small non-lethal dose will cause permanent major damage. But i'm sure IS strict work safety regulations will prevent any application of this WMD.
(If the story is true that is.)
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 26, 2014, 09:57:35 PM
All of what you quoted actually means they aren't viable. The less purity, the more corrupted.
What's more since these were made in '91 at the latest, so all of the stockpile is expired. Best case scenario 3-5 years for sarin and VX, it's been over 20, and the captured examples we got both in '91 and 2003 told us they had lifespans likely amounting to a few weeks as they were so poorly manufactured and contained.
The facility ISIS captured btw, is pretty much a parking lot. We bombed it, and the Iraqis stripped or buried most of what was left. What remains, are poorly maintained bunkers. (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MmTzwE1tp_U)
Well then that's great news, you won't have to worry about donning a protective suit if they use them.
Hell, we should make you the spokesman for "Calming the Masses" and you can carry the word that the chemical munitions are old and not a danger.
Seriously, are you really so stupid as to believe that even a 1% chance is noting to worry about?
Tell that to the victims downwind that only received a 1% dose as they lay dying in the gutter.
Quote from: Mountainshield on August 27, 2014, 04:22:41 AMbecause they don't use suicide bombers or employ people with no regards for their own lives. Even a small non-lethal dose will cause permanent major damage. But i'm sure IS strict work safety regulations will prevent any application of this WMD. (If the story is true that is.)
Again, they could do the same with rat poison, or using Ammonia and bleach to make mustard gas. What's missing is
proportion, toxic isn't lethal, and lethality would require at-length exposure.
The Iraq Survey Group, Bush's own handpicked guys to go find the weapons, concluded this themselves. As did David Kay, our chief inspector:
"Kay said, the decades-old sarin nerve gas was probably no more dangerous than household pesticides -- and far more likely to degrade at room temperature. 'In terms of toxicity, sir,' Kay told [Rep. Curt] Weldon [R-PA] at one point, 'I suspect in your house, and I know in my house, I have things that are more toxic than sarin produced from 1984 to 1988.'"Insurgents during Iraqi Freedom put these expired chemicals in IEDs, set them off, and they still failed to kill a single person.
Conventional explosives would do far more harm at this point.
That, or a machete to the neck, as we all know they love to do.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 27, 2014, 04:58:18 AM
Insurgents during Iraqi Freedom put these expired chemicals in IEDs, set them off, and they still failed to kill a single person. Conventional explosives would do far more harm at this point.
One little problem that our bomb building insurgent buddies didn't realize, and apparently you do not either. The heat generated during the detonation of the conventional explosives used in IED's can be and usually sufficient enough to neutralize chemical and biological agents. You need a more subtle release mechanism to render a chemical aerosol than an IED.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 27, 2014, 12:02:07 AM
Then I don't understand, what is?
They weren't expired when the US went in. Just because they are now doesn't mean they always were.
Quote from: taxed on August 27, 2014, 01:38:24 PM
They weren't expired when the US went in. Just because they are now doesn't mean they always were.
Exactly!
Quote from: taxed on August 27, 2014, 01:38:24 PM
They weren't expired when the US went in. Just because they are now doesn't mean they always were.
Or are they?
If they were expired, then why did the UN use hazmat suits when dealing with them?
Bet ISIS moved them using hazmat suits as well when they stole them.
I have no doubt these munitions are still hazardous, maybe not even close to what they were a few years back, but if they decide to make a bomb with these things, you can bet there'll be exposure and death.
Quote from: Solar on August 27, 2014, 01:57:53 PM
Or are they?
If they were expired, then why did the UN use hazmat suits when dealing with them?
Bet ISIS moved them using hazmat suits as well when they stole them.
I have no doubt these munitions are still hazardous, maybe not even close to what they were a few years back, but if they decide to make a bomb with these things, you can bet there'll be exposure and death.
I would imagine they are hazardous.
Quote from: taxed on August 27, 2014, 02:05:05 PM
I would imagine they are hazardous.
Yeah, I wonder if Slim would be willing to move them in street clothes? :rolleyes: :lol:
Quote from: Solar on August 27, 2014, 02:33:07 PM
Yeah, I wonder if Slim would be willing to move them in street clothes? :rolleyes: :lol:
He might try and drink them.
Quote from: taxed on August 27, 2014, 02:57:12 PM
He might try and drink them.
He's drinkn sumppin. :biggrin:
Quote from: daidalos on August 26, 2014, 07:30:29 PM
Not to mention carrying out acts of war against the United States and it's allies in the region.
But hey we're supposed to overlook that, because the libs don't like Bush. :wink:
As far as I am aware US operations were working fairly closely with all nations in the region. During the Iraq invasion of Iran, for instance, we were selling weapons to both sides. Before Iraq initially invaded Kuwait, Baghdad contacted us to declare their intentions, and while we could have vehemently forbid them which *might* have prevented the whole situation, instead we gave no response. Perhaps we did not believe that Iraq would change its course, and perhaps we were correct in this assumption. Either way instead of making a response we instead prepared for a War and successfully got the UN on board with the resulting 'police action'. And it is certainly interesting that we haven't made a formal declaration of war since World War 2. Perhaps its because of nuclear arms, but formal declarations of war will go a long way to re-establish ourselves as the moral center of the globe.
Quote from: Aristophanes on August 27, 2014, 04:34:27 PM
As far as I am aware US operations were working fairly closely with all nations in the region. During the Iraq invasion of Iran, for instance, we were selling weapons to both sides. Before Iraq initially invaded Kuwait, Baghdad contacted us to declare their intentions, and while we could have vehemently forbid them which *might* have prevented the whole situation, instead we gave no response. Perhaps we did not believe that Iraq would change its course, and perhaps we were correct in this assumption. Either way instead of making a response we instead prepared for a War and successfully got the UN on board with the resulting 'police action'. And it is certainly interesting that we haven't made a formal declaration of war since World War 2. Perhaps its because of nuclear arms, but formal declarations of war will go a long way to re-establish ourselves as the moral center of the globe.
What did you just say?
Quote from: supsalemgr on August 27, 2014, 05:13:44 PM
What did you just say?
I said that US involvement has been a near constant in the middle east, but unfortunately it has been often duplicitous and soft handed.
For instance, the CIA was somewhat successful in the Shah regaining power in Iran just before the revolution to put an even more extreme Iranian Republic into power. And during the war between Iran and Iraq we played both sides, selling weapons to both parties.
Quote from: taxed on August 27, 2014, 01:38:24 PM
They weren't expired when the US went in.
Yes they were, the munitions I bring mention to were made in the 80s, and the latest any of the munitions were made, according to the Iraq Survey Group, was '91.
The ideal lifespan again for sarin and VX was 3-5 years, by 2003 12 years had passed.
From what we captured, even 3-5 wasn't realistic, the purity was terrible, and containment was a mess. Our inspectors put their useful shelf life at 3-4
weeks. By our invasion, they had long since been made useless, no more dangerous than household poisons.
No, I wouldn't want to hold it on me, but nor would I want to hold a leaking bottle of insecticide or acid.
Proportion, that's the key here. What is the danger relative to? The inspector I quoted, tell us exactly what.
Quote from: Aristophanes on August 27, 2014, 08:30:37 PM
I said that US involvement has been a near constant in the middle east, but unfortunately it has been often duplicitous and soft handed.
For instance, the CIA was somewhat successful in the Shah regaining power in Iran just before the revolution to put an even more extreme Iranian Republic into power. And during the war between Iran and Iraq we played both sides, selling weapons to both parties.
I am a firm believer in the old saying that, "The best indicator of the future is the past". Using that philosophy I am convinced there is no way the ME will become westernized. They don't want to be and the Muslim cult beliefs are too ingrained. That being said we should let them have it. Our interest is about oil at market prices and we have options here. Let them go at it.
Quote from: AmericanMom on August 26, 2014, 09:16:15 PM
We know Saddam had WMD's. we all watched the convoys moving them to the Syrian border. We all know Saddam funded terrorist activity.
We all know what is happening now, the disconnect, the disinterest is the same thing that was done under the Clinton admin and even the beginning of the Bush admin. They didn't take Al-Qaeda seriously enough until it was to late and then even after 9/11 they wouldn't allow the American people to be reminded visually of the horrors of that day and what our disinterest can cost us. Our borders are wide open, god only knows what's already here.
Its going to happen again, but I fear this time will be much worse.
I agree with you. Obama is in over his head and always has been -- OR -- he has been successful in fulfilling his agenda to destroy this country. He's been arming ISIS -- things went wrong in Benghazi. He should have taken action in Iran and Syria long ago and he should have never removed troops in Iraq when he did. He was warned what would happen if he withdrew troops to soon. His Joint Chiefs of Staff have even flip-flopped on their assessment of ISIS. Meanwhile Congress is divided on what to do and sit and play the blame game as usual and keep in mind this president acts without Congress anyways. I find it very difficult to believe that those sitting in Congress aren't making a move for political reasons. IMO they aren't making a move because neither party trusts this president and realize that he has gotten us into a very grim situation and has pretty much made them ineffective.
Yes our borders are open. I feel Obama has already strategically placed the "enemy" within this country and who truly know what "deals" he has made with the U.N. I believe the rumor that U.N. troops are already stationed throughout this country ready to act upon his command.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 27, 2014, 09:55:12 PM
Yes they were, the munitions I bring mention to were made in the 80s, and the latest any of the munitions were made, according to the Iraq Survey Group, was '91.
The ideal lifespan again for sarin and VX was 3-5 years, by 2003 12 years had passed.
From what we captured, even 3-5 wasn't realistic, the purity was terrible, and containment was a mess. Our inspectors put their useful shelf life at 3-4 weeks. By our invasion, they had long since been made useless, no more dangerous than household poisons.
No, I wouldn't want to hold it on me, but nor would I want to hold a leaking bottle of insecticide or acid. Proportion, that's the key here. What is the danger relative to? The inspector I quoted, tell us exactly what.
Why would they have a supply of unusable gas?
Quote from: taxed on August 28, 2014, 11:25:48 AM
Why would they have a supply of unusable gas?
To trot out for P.R. purposes once someone figures out where the real stuff went to?
QuoteThe group's leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-described leader of all Muslims, launched the al-Qaida offshoot while sitting in the Camp Bucca detention center a decade ago, handpicking his top officers from among the prisoners he befriended, the Times said.
Baghdadi chose men with military background, mostly former officers with years of fighting experience serving in Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's once highly-regarded army, including Fadel al-Hayali, an ex-lieutenant colonel, and Adnan al-Sweidawi, a former lieutenant colonel who heads ISIS's military council, the Times said.
Combining military know-how with well-planned terror tactics learned from years of fighting experience against American forces, ISIS has had a series of battlefield successes in eastern Syria and northern Iraq. It is, in effect, "a hybrid of terrorists and army," the newspaper said.
"These guys know the terrorism business inside and out, and they are the ones who survived aggressive counterterrorism campaigns during the surge," a U.S. intelligence official, referring to the increase in American troops in Iraq in 2007, told the Times. "They didn't survive by being incompetent." The official wasn't identified by the newspaper.
Although the Sunni militants had launched their terror campaign in Syria, they eventually overran swaths of land in Iraq, ruled by Shiite Muslims who were unwilling to share power with the Sunnis, and in June captured Mosul, Iraq's second largest city.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://wwww.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/ISIS-military-tactics-resources/2014/08/28/id/591385/#ixzz3BjShv4Zx (http://wwww.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ISIS-military-tactics-resources/2014/08/28/id/591385/#ixzz3BjShv4Zx)
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
Is there a chance that some of these Ex- Saddam military leaders knew where some of the less degraded WMD's where and their main objective in going into Iraq was to retrieve them?
I am by no means an expert on chemical weapons but isn't it true that some are 2 part and don't degrade until they are mixed? :huh: :huh:
Quote from: redbeard on August 28, 2014, 04:31:24 PM
Is there a chance that some of these Ex- Saddam military leaders knew where some of the less degraded WMD's where and their main objective in going into Iraq was to retrieve them?
I am by no means an expert on chemical weapons but isn't it true that some are 2 part and don't degrade until they are mixed? :huh: :huh:
Yes, and some don't mix till near impact.
It's not known whether or not Saddam had the capabilities, but based on what they did have, it's safe to assume he had the abilities to produce them.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 27, 2014, 12:29:54 AM
^why go so far? I could approximate the current toxicity with household rat poison and industrial cleaners. :tounge:
Precisely....however you are forgetting something..... THE DELIVERY SYSTEM.....its a proven fact that Saddam had forbidden long range missles capable of carrying chemical payloads which were found concealed here and there in Iraq. It is real easy to make chlorine gas....I can do it after a trip to the local food lion....however I must have a way of DELIVERING it if I want to kill a lot of people.
Its like a convicted felon possessing a sawed off shotgun but not having any shells (that could be found)
Quote from: Solar on August 28, 2014, 04:57:57 PM
Yes, and some don't mix till near impact.
It doesn't matter, even unmixed the materials themselves corrode.
The Iraq Survey Group stated in their report that they found no trace of any functioning weapons in Iraq, or any trace of any having been built since the '91 bombing of Iraq's sole chemical plant.
What they
did find, was indications the Iraqis intended to start their programs up again if the sanctions were ever rescinded.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 28, 2014, 08:41:47 PM
It doesn't matter, even unmixed the materials themselves corrode.
The Iraq Survey Group stated in their report that they found no trace of any functioning weapons in Iraq, or any trace of any having been built since the '91 bombing of Iraq's sole chemical plant.
What they did find, was indications the Iraqis intended to start their programs up again if the sanctions were ever rescinded.
Now why didn't Saddam say that?
Quote from: taxed on August 28, 2014, 11:25:48 AM
Why would they have a supply of unusable gas?
Why does Russia have fleets of old, useless nuclear powered ships sitting in dry dock?
They didn't have (or didn't want to spend) the money to dispose of them, only to seal them and close off the area.
Even when Iraqis
did try to dispose of it, all this resulted in was burying it somewhere. That's not exactly "safer".
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 28, 2014, 08:48:41 PM
Now why didn't Saddam say that?
Indignation, and didn't really believe we'd invade him over it. And even when we did, he didn't think we'd remove him from power, just try to "teach him a lesson" like we did Gaddafi (in the 80s, not recently). Indeed, this is why he didn't burn his oil wells like during the first war, and tried to bury or send away his Air Force. He fully expected to come out of it with his regime intact.
There was a famous message he sent the French and the Germans, where he said the Americans could just "throw a fit in mud" or something like that, as there was nothing to achieve. This, when we were barely 100 miles outside of Baghdad, and closing in.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 28, 2014, 09:10:02 PM
Indignation, and didn't really believe we'd invade him over it. And even when we did, he didn't think we'd remove him from power, just try to "teach him a lesson" like we did Gaddafi (in the 80s, not recently). Indeed, this is why he didn't burn his oil wells like during the first war, and tried to bury or send away his Air Force. He fully expected to come out of it with his regime intact.
There was a famous message he sent the French and the Germans, where he said the Americans could just "throw a fit in mud" or something like that, as there was nothing to achieve. This, when we were barely 100 miles outside of Baghdad, and closing in.
So he is to blame for the "Iraq War"...
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 28, 2014, 09:18:52 PM
So he is to blame for the "Iraq War"...
I'd call it not double checking our own intelligence. It took Sec. Powell less than a year after presenting the intelligence to the U.N. to admit he made a mistake.
I'd also blame the CIA, eviscerated after 9/11, and desperate to look like it was on the ball again.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 28, 2014, 09:23:39 PM
I'd call it not double checking our own intelligence. It took Sec. Powell less than a year after presenting the intelligence to the U.N. to admit he made a mistake.
I'd also blame the CIA, eviscerated after 9/11, and desperate to look like it was on the ball again.
Wrong sir! We didn't have to check
anything..
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 28, 2014, 09:58:36 PM
Wrong sir! We didn't have to check anything..
The intelligence was wrong, Saddam did not have an ongoing project, his existing stockpiles were no threat, and by 2002, he was even complying with our orders to destroy the rest of his past program.
That last one we know by hindsight admittedly. Ironically, it was his soldiers communications over getting rid of and hiding the remainder of the 1980s weapons, that the CIA mistook as communications over them having an on-going weapons program that they were trying to hide from our inspectors.
Something the CIA only caught onto, after they told the Bush Administration that the Iraqis *definitely* were building WMDs.
So Bush, as it's been so unfairly accused, didn't lie. Rather, the CIA did. Even after uncovering the truth, they stayed silent until it was too late. I suppose it's understandable, from their POV: "
Wha-? We made another mistake? Ah sh*t" And it wasn't even their first one when it came to Iraq.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 28, 2014, 10:11:09 PM
The intelligence was wrong, Saddam did not have an ongoing project, his existing stockpiles were no threat, and by 2002, he was even complying with our orders to destroy the rest of his past program.
That last one we know by hindsight admittedly. Ironically, it was his soldiers communications over getting rid of and hiding the remainder of the 1980s weapons, that the CIA mistook as communications over them having an on-going weapons program that they were trying to hide from our inspectors.
Something the CIA only caught onto, after they told the Bush Administration that the Iraqis *definitely* were building WMDs.
So Bush, as it's been so unfairly accused, didn't lie. Rather, the CIA did. Even after uncovering the truth, they stayed silent until it was too late. I suppose it's understandable, from their POV: "Wha-? We made another mistake? Ah sh*t" And it wasn't even their first one when it came to Iraq.
That is irrelevant. The Gulf war never really ended. There was a cease fire. And there were stipulations to that cease fire. Some of them involved chemical weapons. We know he had chemical weapons as he used them against his own people. In the cease fire Saddam agreed to no longer acquire, manufacture or create in any way WMD's. Saddam agreed to these stipulations so it was up to him to prove he no longer possessed them. He refused to do so for
years. Therefore we had a legal and moral right to restart military operations under the gulf war cease fire agreement.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 28, 2014, 11:49:33 PM
That is irrelevant. The Gulf war never really ended. There was a cease fire. And there were stipulations to that cease fire. Some of them involved chemical weapons. We know he had chemical weapons as he used them against his own people.
Yeah... in 1988.
QuoteIn the cease fire Saddam agreed to no longer acquire, manufacture or create in any way WMD's. Saddam agreed to these stipulations so it was up to him to prove he no longer possessed them. He refused to do so for years.
He refused to cooperate with the inspectors, but he in fact
did not create any more chemical weapons.
He in fact lost that capacity in '91, and he never rebuilt it. I don't know if that was by choice, or if the sanctions were effective enough to prevent him, but either way...
His "violations" weren't chemicals, rather, it was
delivery systems. When we invaded, we found SCUDS he wasn't supposed to have, and even an unmanned drone that was under development.
Additionally, he shot at (though never hit) passing coalition aircraft doing reconnaissance.
Does that constitute war? Legally perhaps, but as a practical mater... it's pretty weak. Even the "shooting at aircraft" is something other nations have done to us (including one
particular nation with a ceasefire with us, and another that has been "at war" with us you could say since '79), without war resulting.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 29, 2014, 12:00:52 AM
Yeah... in 1988.
So if he had them in 1988 why shouldn't we think he had them two, three or five years later?
QuoteHe refused to cooperate with the inspectors, but he in fact did not create any more chemical weapons.
He in fact lost that capacity in '91, and he never rebuilt it. I don't know if that was by choice, or if the sanctions were effective enough to prevent him, but either way...
As you said he refused to cooperate. That is all we needed to restart military actions.
QuoteHis "violations" weren't chemicals, rather, it was delivery systems. When we invaded, we found SCUDS he wasn't supposed to have, and even an unmanned drone that was under development.
Not according to Resolution 1441
QuoteAdditionally, he shot at (though never hit) passing coalition aircraft doing reconnaissance.
That wouldn't invite a full scale invasion.
QuoteDoes that constitute war? Legally perhaps, but as a practical mater... it's pretty weak. Even the "shooting at aircraft" is something other nations have done to us (including one particular nation with a ceasefire with us, and another that has been "at war" with us you could say since '79), without war resulting.
You did an excellent though obvious job at muddying the waters for no apparent reason.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 29, 2014, 12:35:52 AM
So if he had them in 1988 why shouldn't we think he had them two, three or five years later?
Because Sarin and VX have a shelf life of 3-5 years (though the Iraqi made material was far short of even that), and 2003 was 12 years after his plant was bombed. Sarin was what they used in Halabja.
QuoteAs you said he refused to cooperate. That is all we needed to restart military actions.
Not under 1441. That required a separate resolution we never got. The best we got in citing the resolutions was consensus that Iraq might have weapons.
1441 itself was built upon the CIA intelligence Colin Powell presented, and which again, he admitted less than a year later was wrong. He and Ambassador Negroponte told countries, including Syria, to earn their support for 1441, that it didn't have the legal basis, or "triggers", for an invasion.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 29, 2014, 01:01:50 AM
Because Sarin and VX have a shelf life of 3-5 years (though the Iraqi made material was far short of even that), and 2003 was 12 years after his plant was bombed. Sarin was what they used in Halabja.
We had no idea what he had or didn't have. Aside from that he would not cooperate. You admitted so yourself.
QuoteNot under 1441. That required a separate resolution we never got. The best we got in citing the resolutions was consensus that Iraq might have weapons.
1441 itself was built upon the CIA intelligence Colin Powell presented, and which again, he admitted less than a year later was wrong. He and Ambassador Negroponte told countries, including Syria, to earn their support for 1441, that it didn't have the legal basis, or "triggers", for an invasion.
1441 was based on the United Nations Security Council ceasefire which called for Iraq to disarm it's WMD program. They failed to prove they did. For nearly a decade.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 29, 2014, 01:39:13 AM
We had no idea what he had or didn't have.
Yes we did, we captured examples of his weapons in '91. We knew production hadn't started up back at his old plant, as that's detectable, even from miles away, and the inspectors got inside the place.
Without that plant, his options were pretty limited even if he had tried.
QuoteAside from that he would not cooperate. You admitted so yourself.
Sure, some years, other years he did cooperate. However, this was never a listed cause for invasion in any of the resolutions.
Quote1441 was based on the United Nations Security Council ceasefire which called for Iraq to disarm it's WMD program. They failed to prove they did. For nearly a decade.
And see, that's the thing here: "prove". It's a given Iraq was indignant and slow to respond, *we* should have done more to cover our bases, to ensure they were doing what we were accusing them of.
The Iraqis were disarming in 2002, and they told as much. We didn't believe them. Eventually the CIA caught onto the fact that the Iraqis were telling the truth.
Eventually. If it had simply hedged its bets and not insisted on an "impending threat" without conclusive evidence, they would have caught on earlier, before they scared the rest of us into thinking the regime needed to go now or suffer another 9/11.
The CIA did tell the Bush administration before the invasion (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/23/cia.iraq/), but by that point we were committed in our policy. Stepping back would have portrayed weakness.
"
Prudence", that should be posted on the walls of every CIA office.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 28, 2014, 08:41:47 PM
It doesn't matter, even unmixed the materials themselves corrode.
Then I suggest you do some homework, simple research, because this particular type of munition has an indefinite shelf life.
Quote from: Solar on August 29, 2014, 05:40:09 AM
Then I suggest you do some homework, simple research, because this particular type of munition has an indefinite shelf life.
Not indefinite, and you still need a stabilization agent. Iraq was still trying to develop one when its plant was hit.
It's chemical production capability never recovered, the ISG report says that while breakout capability for Mustard Gas remained, nerve agents (like Sarin, binary agent or otherwise) were undoable.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 29, 2014, 06:40:20 AM
Not indefinite, and you still need a stabilization agent. Iraq was still trying to develop one when its plant was hit.
It's chemical production capability never recovered, the ISG report says that while breakout capability for Mustard Gas remained, nerve agents (like Sarin, binary agent or otherwise) were undoable.
Quit doubling down on stupid and look it up for yourself, as well as, learn what Indefinite means.
Quote from: Solar on August 29, 2014, 06:53:32 AM
Quit doubling down on stupid
The ISG report is against you on this. The weapons needed a stabilization agent, like DIC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N,N%27-Diisopropylcarbodiimide), that the Iraqis had little to no supply of, and, binary agent warheads were only experimental in the Iraqis inventory. They made barely 100 for prototyping, suspected to include one 152mm shell that was exploded as an IED in 2004. Did little to nothing.
The VX strains meanwhile were so impure and unstable that the Iraqis abandoned the effort altogether. They weren't even weaponized.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 29, 2014, 07:36:15 AM
The ISG report is against you on this. The weapons needed a stabilization agent, like DIC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N,N%27-Diisopropylcarbodiimide), that the Iraqis had little to no supply of, and, binary agent warheads were only experimental in the Iraqis inventory. They made barely 100 for prototyping, suspected to include one 152mm shell that was exploded as an IED in 2004. Did little to nothing.
The VX strains meanwhile were so impure and unstable that the Iraqis abandoned the effort altogether. They weren't even weaponized.
More undaunted belief in govt, or in this case, a communist UN.
Why do you insist on believing everything govt feeds you?
Oh that's right, you're nothing but a lib.
Quote from: Solar on August 29, 2014, 08:52:23 AM
More undaunted belief in govt, or in this case, a communist UN.
The Iraq Survey Group were Americans, personally chosen by President Bush and his advisers, along with nationals from the "Coalition of the willing".
Read on them. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Survey_Group)
QuoteWhy do you insist on believing everything govt feeds you?
It was a Gov't that insisted there were weapons in Iraq to begin with.
I did believe them. Now I know better.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 29, 2014, 09:00:05 AM
The Iraq Survey Group were Americans, personally chosen by President Bush and his advisers, along with nationals from the "Coalition of the willing".
Read on them. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Survey_Group)
It was a Gov't that insisted there were weapons in Iraq to begin with.
I did believe them. Now I know better.
Remember all those chem weapons found in Syria recently?
QuoteThe man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.
The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new book, "Saddam's Secrets," released this week. He detailed the transfers in an interview yesterday with The New York Sun.
"There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," Mr. Sada said. "I am confident they were taken over."
Mr. Sada's comments come just more than a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/ (http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/)
Now go away, you bother me!
Quote from: Solar on August 29, 2014, 10:31:37 AM
Remember all those chem weapons found in Syria recently?
Now go away, you bother me!
Don't confuse his fantasy with actual facts....it messes up his limited thought process!
Quote from: Solar on August 29, 2014, 10:31:37 AM
Remember all those chem weapons found in Syria recently?
Remember that Syria had its own Chemical Weapons program? And started producing them around the same time Iraq did (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_chemical_weapons_program), without the '91 interruption? (They even have VX, which Iraq's program failed at.)
Also remember, the planes, which are oddly not mentioned in the ISG report (with all of those resources, you'd think they'd notice it at least at the same time Fox News did), turned out to be apart of the Iraqi response to a dam break in Syria in 2002?
QuoteThe large Zeyzoun earth dam, located in the agricultural Al-Ghab region some 300 km north of Damascus, collapsed on 4 June 2002. The impact of the released water caused serious damage in nearby populated areas with resultant casualties .
To date some 20 people are known to have been killed, and this figure is not likely to change. It is estimated that over 10,000 people were directly affected by this incident to varying degrees, with at least 2,000 rendered completely homeless.
Six days after the disaster, it is considered that the humanitarian situation resulting from this accident is largely under control as a result of a swift and targeted response by the Provincial and Central Syrian authorities. A rapid reaction by the international community, which sent large quantities of emergency supplies, also contributed to quickly stabilize the situation.
...
Iraq has sent 12 airplanes with food, medicines and blankets, and also dispatched a 12-member medical team.
Also seems strange Iraq would send them these weapons, considering they weren't friends. Al Assad is of a small Shia sect, Saddam owed his allegiance to the Sunni.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 29, 2014, 01:50:54 PM
Remember that Syria had its own Chemical Weapons program? And started producing them around the same time Iraq did (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_chemical_weapons_program), without the '91 interruption? (They even have VX, which Iraq's program failed at.)
Also remember, the planes, which are oddly not mentioned in the ISG report (with all of those resources, you'd think they'd notice it at least at the same time Fox News did), turned out to be apart of the Iraqi response to a dam break in Syria in 2002?
Also seems strange Iraq would send them these weapons, considering they weren't friends. Al Assad is of a small Shia sect, Saddam owed his allegiance to the Sunni.
Seriously, WIKI?
That''s it, speculation? Also Saddam didn't give a damn about Sunni or Shia, he was a dictator that didn't want to get caught with his pants down so he sent them out of country.
QuoteIn 2006, former Iraqi general, Georges Sada, who served under Saddam Hussein before he defected, wrote a comprehensive book detailing how the Iraqi Revolutionary Guard moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria, before the US-led action to eliminate Saddam Hussein's WMD threat, by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.
As reported in the New York Sun on January 26, 2006:
"'There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands,' Mr. Sada said. 'I am confident they were taken over.'"
"Mr. Sada's comments come just more than a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam 'transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria.'
"Democrats have made the absence of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq a theme in their criticism of the Bush administration's decision to go to war in 2003...
"The discovery of the weapons in Syria could alter the American political debate on the Iraq war. And even the accusations that they are there could step up international pressure on the government in Damascus. That government, led by Bashar Assad, is already facing a UN investigation over its alleged role in the assassination of a former prime minister of Lebanon. The Bush administration has criticized Syria for its support of terrorism and its failure to cooperate with the UN investigation."
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/071912-618875-syria-chemical-weapons-came-from-iraq-.htm#ixzz2E7mjc0Dz (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/071912-618875-syria-chemical-weapons-came-from-iraq-.htm#ixzz2E7mjc0Dz)
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/07/14/And-where-did-syrias-chemical-weapons (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/07/14/And-where-did-syrias-chemical-weapons)
Quote from: Bowhntr on August 29, 2014, 01:26:02 PM
Don't confuse his fantasy with actual facts....it messes up his limited thought process!
He doesn't know when to quit, so watch, he'll double down on stupid.
My head hurts.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 29, 2014, 05:07:45 PM
My head hurts.
Mine too, so it's time to move this nonsense.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 29, 2014, 05:07:45 PM
My head hurts.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2F90%2Fdd%2F0b%2F90dd0bd11df557bd580a278fb4c00f53.jpg&hash=8ca76c666bcac5db98852dc8bf23428fdc774f00)
Quote from: Solar on August 29, 2014, 03:14:30 PM
Seriously, WIKI?
That excuse only works if the page lists no sources. Fortunately, it does (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/02/syria-crisis-french-intelligence-assad).
"
The report details the Syrian chemical weapons programme, which it says began in the 1970s with the importing of chemical weapons. It states that Damascus has more than 1,000 tonnes of chemical agents making it "one of the most important operational stocks in the world". It describes Syria's chemical arsenal as "particularly massive and diverse", including Yperite, VX (one of the most toxic chemical agents known) and "several hundred tonnes of sarin".
"The sarin and the VX ... are partly stocked in a binary form, that is to say kept in the form of two chemical products called precursors, that are mixed just before use. This technique and the associated procedures show a great knowledge of the technology of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime.""
QuoteThat''s it, speculation? Also Saddam didn't give a damn about Sunni or Shia,
Sunnis were his power base, it's the reason they made the bulk of the insurgency in '04-09. They were angry at us for ruining their good ride.
Quotehttp://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/071912-618875-syria-chemical-weapons-came-from-iraq-.htm#ixzz2E7mjc0Dz (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/071912-618875-syria-chemical-weapons-came-from-iraq-.htm#ixzz2E7mjc0Dz)
Yeah, already heard about him. Unfortunately, he wasn't part of Saddam's inner circle, Saddam kept his command purposefully fragmented so as not to challenge his power. This meant he was in the dark for plenty of Saddam's actions, even if they were benign. The ISG meanwhile took testimony from the scientists inside the WMD program itself, which is why they say this:
Quote"ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place", the report said. The report said that 12 years of international sanctions against Baghdad after the Gulf War had left Iraq's scientific community decimated and these experts' skills in a state of "natural decay".
The group added it was unlikely that scientists were capable of re-creating the destroyed weapons programs, meaning Iraq would have possessed little, if anything, to transfer.
QuoteDavid Kay told the House and Senate intelligence committees, "We have not yet found stocks of weapons... We have not yet been able to corroborate the existence of a mobile BW (biological weapons) production effort... Multiple sources (say) that Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled CW (chemical warfare) program after 1991.... [and] to date we have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material.... [and] no detainee has admitted any actual knowledge of plans for unconventional warheads for any current or planned ballistic missile".
...detainees interviewed by the group "uniformly denied any knowledge of residual WMD that could have been secreted to Syria"
Other claims the General has made equally proved faulty.
He claimed Iraq was in-on the 9/11 attacks planning and execution, and that Iraq was willingly helping Al Qaeda and training operatives.
Both of these things were denied by the 9/11 commission report.
The General is a charlatan. He wasn't there in person to see these WMDs, he never gave names for those who supposedly did, the ISG couldn't locate one scrap of corroborating physical evidence, even as they uncovered mountains of dual-paperwork that explains the programs existence, the people who made it happen, and locating other weapon systems the Iraqis didn't want them to find.
General Sada was simply telling people what they wanted to hear. Just like the other informant, Curveball. (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/15/defector-admits-wmd-lies-iraq-war)
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 29, 2014, 08:42:47 PM
That excuse only works if the page lists no sources. Fortunately, it does (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/02/syria-crisis-french-intelligence-assad).
"The report details the Syrian chemical weapons programme, which it says began in the 1970s with the importing of chemical weapons. It states that Damascus has more than 1,000 tonnes of chemical agents making it "one of the most important operational stocks in the world". It describes Syria's chemical arsenal as "particularly massive and diverse", including Yperite, VX (one of the most toxic chemical agents known) and "several hundred tonnes of sarin".
"The sarin and the VX ... are partly stocked in a binary form, that is to say kept in the form of two chemical products called precursors, that are mixed just before use. This technique and the associated procedures show a great knowledge of the technology of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime.""
Sunnis were his power base, it's the reason they made the bulk of the insurgency in '04-09. They were angry at us for ruining their good ride.
Yeah, already heard about him. Unfortunately, he wasn't part of Saddam's inner circle, Saddam kept his command purposefully fragmented so as not to challenge his power. This meant he was in the dark for plenty of Saddam's actions, even if they were benign. The ISG meanwhile took testimony from the scientists inside the WMD program itself, which is why they say this:
Other claims the General has made equally proved faulty. He claimed Iraq was in-on the 9/11 attacks planning and execution, and that Iraq was willingly helping Al Qaeda and training operatives.
Both of these things were denied by the 9/11 commission report.
The General is a charlatan. He wasn't there in person to see these WMDs, he never gave names for those who supposedly did, the ISG couldn't locate one scrap of corroborating physical evidence, even as they uncovered mountains of dual-paperwork that explains the programs existence, the people who made it happen, and locating other weapon systems the Iraqis didn't want them to find.
General Sada was simply telling people what they wanted to hear. Just like the other informant, Curveball. (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/15/defector-admits-wmd-lies-iraq-war)
Do you remember the convoy that left Iraq for Syria that got away?
I'll take the witnesses word over that of the UN, a bunch of commies and Muscum.
It's obvious you lack something integral to all of this, understanding global "Politics", so lets see if you can figure out on your own why the UN decided on not pursuing the issue of WMDs in Syria on your own.
QuoteOutgoing UN Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay takes swipe at Security Council
The five permanent members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- wield veto power on the council, and their use highlights deep divisions.
In May, Russia and China vetoed a draft resolution giving the International Criminal Court the green light to open cases for war crimes prosecution in the Syria conflict.
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-08-21/news/53072767_1_security-council-15-member-council-syria-conflict (http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-08-21/news/53072767_1_security-council-15-member-council-syria-conflict)
QuoteSyria, Iran Bid For UN Human Rights Council Seats Met With Understandable Incredulity
UNITED NATIONS -- The United States on Thursday slammed Syria and Iran for seeking seats on the U.N.'s Human Rights Council, saying their own rights violations are under U.N. investigation.
Syria and Iran are candidates to join the 47-nation Geneva-based Council, along with other often-criticized nations such as Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Chad, Vietnam and Russia.
Syria is embroiled in a brutal civil war, with human rights groups blaming both President Basher Assad's government and the Syrian rebels for abuses. Iran is a key Syrian ally, and is also criticized for jailing political prisoners, executing drug offenders.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/11/syria-iran-un-human-right_n_3582481.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/11/syria-iran-un-human-right_n_3582481.html)
QuoteUN Elevates Syria: Business as Usual
Mr. President, what the Commission of Inquiry has just described is a living hell. Faced with continuing reports of Syria's mass murder, torture, rape, and gassing of civilians by chemical weapons, how is the United Nations responding?
With notable exceptions, this inquiry being one, the UN's policy toward Syria can be described in three words: business as usual.
Consider the following. In November 2011, well into Syria's atrocities, UNESCO elected the Syrian regime—unanimously—to its human rights committee.
I ask the commission: what message did the UN send, when—up until only a few months ago—it allowed the Assad regime to sit as a judge of petitions submitted by human rights victims from around the world?
http://blog.unwatch.org/index.php/2014/06/18/un-elevates-syria-business-as-usual/ (http://blog.unwatch.org/index.php/2014/06/18/un-elevates-syria-business-as-usual/)
Quote from: Solar on August 30, 2014, 09:35:40 AM
Do you remember the convoy that left Iraq for Syria that got away?
Do you remember the head of the ISG addressing that, saying based on interrogations, the items sent to Syria were either conventional or not even weapons at all?
QuoteIt's obvious you lack something integral to all of this, understanding global "Politics", so lets see if you can figure out on your own why the UN decided on not pursuing the issue of WMDs in Syria on your own.
And it's obvious you won't read the ISG report because you're afraid of what it says. You also try to use the U.N. Accusations as a shield, when it's hand picked Bush administration officials that gave us the evidence of why everything was either wrong or circumstantial.
George Bush himself already gave up the ghost, he admits the intelligence was wrong and wished it had been better:
"The biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq... I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess."
By continuing this argument, you are insisting you or whatever news outlet you get your information from knows better than the president, and the people who were on the ground
for years in Iraq, with help of the CIA and the US army, looking for any trace of the weapons once thought to be there.
All those resources, all that manpower, all of their witnesses, couldn't find the justification the administration was hungry for. Saddam himself denied to the very end he had any weapons, and it seems he was finally telling the truth.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 30, 2014, 11:42:44 AM
Do you remember the head of the ISG addressing that, saying based on interrogations, the items sent to Syria were either conventional or not even weapons at all?
And it's obvious you won't read the ISG report because you're afraid of what it says. You also try to use the U.N. Accusations as a shield, when it's hand picked Bush administration officials that gave us the evidence of why everything was either wrong or circumstantial.
George Bush himself already gave up the ghost, he admits the intelligence was wrong and wished it had been better:
"The biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq... I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess."
By continuing this argument, you are insisting you or whatever news outlet you get your information from knows better than the president, and the people who were on the ground for years in Iraq, with help of the CIA and the US army, looking for any trace of the weapons once thought to be there.
All those resources, all that manpower, all of their witnesses, couldn't find the justification the administration was hungry for. Saddam himself denied to the very end he had any weapons, and it seems he was finally telling the truth.
Again, you put wayyy to much trust in govt to tell the truth, especially ours, over the last 30 years.
Politics makes for strange bedfellows, and sometimes our enemies enemy is our friend. In other words, trust no one where their best interests are at stake.
This chess game countries play is far more sophisticated than you could ever wrap your head around, and for you to take their word at face value is nothing short of naive.
Quote from: Solar on August 30, 2014, 01:15:45 PM
Again, you put wayyy to much trust in govt to tell the truth,
And yet, you conveniently forget that it was the govt who made the claim to begin with.
It turned out that the govt was lying, according to disgruntled former employees, and witnesses from Iraq, why are you surprised?
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 30, 2014, 04:11:18 PM
And yet, you conveniently forget that it was the govt who made the claim to begin with.
And still, it has yet to dawn on you why they would create a cover story after losing trace of an international flight.
Think about it for a moment, they know the plane had been stolen, they had been in contact with the pilot long after he stole the plane, till he signed off one last time.
Wouldn't you want people to think we're not that incompetent?
They (the govt) lost a plane, they knew everyone on the plane was dead early on, they knew the pilot was still flying the plane, so why didn't he just crash it and get it over with?
Because they never intended on crashing it in the first place, that's why.
Like I said, if you have evidence it crashed, then post it, otherwise drop it!
Quote from: Solar on August 30, 2014, 05:02:40 PM
And still, it has yet to dawn on you why they would create a cover story after losing trace of an international flight.
? This isn't the thread about MH370.
Quote from: Mountainshield on August 26, 2014, 01:19:47 PM
If something is too good to be true then it probably isn't, it would be perfect timing though. In anycase WMD was just one of the reasons Rumsfeld gave Bush to invade Iraq, for posterity sake he made a big mistake focusing only on WMD's.
The AUMF - 2002, contained some 22 separate reasons for using force against the Saddam regime in Iraq; one dealt with WMD. It wasn't Bush or Rumsfeld who concentrated on WMD's, it was the media, to give their Dem allies an out. And even on that they lied and distorted. No they didn't find missiles with nuclear/biological/chemical warheads, sitting on launching pads. But they did find some of these weapons, and facilities to make more. If the media had been honest - which is sort of like expecting pigs to accelerate to mach two - they would have pointed out that President Bush had said long ago, that the object was to stop terrorists
BEFORE they got to the possession and possible use stage.
Update Re: about those nonexistent Chemical weapons.
They're still deadly as Hell, and ISIS has them.
This has to be hard for the NYSlimes to report.
The soldiers at the blast crater sensed something was wrong.
FROM 2004 TO 2011, AMERICAN AND IRAQI TROOPS REPEATEDLY ENCOUNTERED, AND AT TIMES WERE WOUNDED BY, CHEMICAL WEAPONS THAT WERE HIDDEN OR ABANDONED YEARS EARLIER.
It was August 2008 near Taji, Iraq. They had just exploded a stack of old Iraqi artillery shells buried beside a murky lake. The blast, part of an effort to destroy munitions that could be used in makeshift bombs, uncovered more shells.
Two technicians assigned to dispose of munitions stepped into the hole. Lake water seeped in. One of them, Specialist Andrew T. Goldman, noticed a pungent odor, something, he said, he had never smelled before.
He lifted a shell. Oily paste oozed from a crack. "That doesn't look like pond water," said his team leader, Staff Sgt. Eric J. Duling.
The specialist swabbed the shell with chemical detection paper. It turned red — indicating sulfur mustard, the chemical warfare agent designed to burn a victim's airway, skin and eyes.
All three men recall an awkward pause. Then Sergeant Duling gave an order: "Get the hell out."
Five years after President George W. Bush sent troops into Iraq, these soldiers had entered an expansive but largely secret chapter of America's long and bitter involvement in Iraq.
From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein's rule.
In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
Jarrod L. Taylor, a former Army sergeant on hand for the destruction of mustard shells that burned two soldiers in his infantry company, joked of "wounds that never happened" from "that stuff that didn't exist." The public, he said, was misled for a decade. "I love it when I hear, 'Oh there weren't any chemical weapons in Iraq,' " he said. "There were plenty."
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html)
:cursing:
All of a sudden the weapons existed, eh? -Years late, and millions of dollars short. A
Quote from: kit saginaw on October 15, 2014, 08:25:58 AM
:cursing:
All of a sudden the weapons existed, eh? -Years late, and millions of dollars short. A
And in the hands of the enemy. Man what an embarrassment the Marxist is on the world stage.
But will the libs acknowledge it? :rolleyes:
There is something about this story that has me puzzled. Supposedly, these finding began in 2004 when GWB was still POTUS. He was being hammered by the dems and the MSM about lying about the existence of WMD's. If they were confirmed why did that administration not put the word out? :huh: :huh:
Quote from: supsalemgr on October 15, 2014, 01:21:04 PM
There is something about this story that has me puzzled. Supposedly, these finding began in 2004 when GWB was still POTUS. He was being hammered by the dems and the MSM about lying about the existence of WMD's. If they were confirmed why did that administration not put the word out? :huh: :huh:
Somehow I accidentally posted my above response prematurely, but I was sorta answering what you're asking... Judging the NYT on their past behavior, the article comes-off as a kind of sideshow distraction to the Marx Bro's other troubles right now. I'm glad they wrote it, but... part of the story should be about
themselves (the NYT) yucking-it-up in '04-thru-'06, parroting that America only invaded Iraq to steal their oil.
Quote from: supsalemgr on October 15, 2014, 01:21:04 PM
There is something about this story that has me puzzled. Supposedly, these finding began in 2004 when GWB was still POTUS. He was being hammered by the dems and the MSM about lying about the existence of WMD's. If they were confirmed why did that administration not put the word out? :huh: :huh:
I guess they didn't want the insurgents to know that there might be chemical weapons lying around they could get their hands on. They probably thought it was better to let the media continue bad mouthing Bush, rather than have the insurgents hunt up a nerve gas weapon, and set it off on a major highway route.