Did Saddam have WMDs after all? : ISIS Overruns Iraq Chemical Weapons 'Mega-Facility'

a reply to: DelMarvel

Hmm, allowing 100's of millions in U.S. currency was found from oil kickbacks and Iraq's connection with the lead scientist from Pakistan's nuclear development, If Saddam is still in power today, what are the odds he'd be a nuclear power now,developed or purchased? 50%? 75%? 100%?

Left to his own devices and having the resources, can you honestly say he wouldn't be in possession of nukes now?

In my mind, this is more than enough to have finished the job....irrespective of any other real or imagined motives.

a reply to: crazyewok
First of all, Bush didn't write the resolution. LOL. That was a congressional creation, a bi-partisan creation. When has ANY gov't body EVER got anything 100% right?

You bleat "Bush Lied" and demand proof that he didn't.

Let's give you a taste..."Crazyewok is disingenuous in that he assumes he's right, posts those thoughts irrespective of being 100% accurate or not".

Prove otherwise. please.. (no disrespect, intended. Just an eg.)

What??? So, this is the story...

There are bad people in Iraq with WMD's!!! We need to invade!
Ok, I guess there aren't WMD's...still though, we're gonna have to stay there over a decade...
Ok, another group of bad people have take control of the WMD's that we thought existed then said didn't exist...guess we need to invade again!

Humorous, in a sad kind of way...

It was confirmed at the time that Saddam had chemical weapons.

The Daily Telegraph showed pictures of Iraqi troops taking chemical weapons into Syria, and I have talked to people who served in Desert Storm and said that they saw columns of troops transporting chemical weapons but were not allowed to stop them under the American "Rules of Engagement" because they weren't firing on them first.

Many of the chemical weapons being used right now by the Assad regime are American weapons that were given to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, and ones produced under license by Saddam after the Americans showed him how to do it.

They know there were chemical weapons there - because they (a) gave them to him and (b) showed him how to manufacture them.

However, because acknowledging that they let them get into Syria would be a PR disaster for the American military, it was decided at the time that it was better to appear wrong than to appear incompetent.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: watchitburn
Of course there were chemical weapons there. I've been telling people that since we started finding IEDs using Mustard rounds. There weren't many, but they were most definitely there.

But this is an awkward turn of events, maybe we'll get some kind of half assed explanation this time.

Of course they were there. Saddaam even used them against the Kurds.

Whom provided Saddam those weapons again? do tell.

a reply to: babybunnies

The Daily Telegraph showed pictures of Iraqi troops taking chemical weapons into Syria, and I have talked to people who served in Desert Storm and said that they saw columns of troops transporting chemical weapons but were not allowed to stop them under the American "Rules of Engagement" because they weren't firing on them first.

LOL the Daily Telegraph as an source for that? yeah they did? showed pictures of Iraqi troops taking chemical weapons into Syria, just like how Colin Powell of the alleged WMDs as Bio labs and after the invasion nothing was found.


I have talked to people who served in Desert Storm and said
Cool Story bro i sure believe that (Apparently i dont.)

a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter

Well actually,,
"11, 1990, FRONTLINE examined how Saddam Hussein built Iraq's massive arsenal of tanks, planes, missiles, and chemical weapons ... At least half of Iraq's conventional weapons were purchased from its ally, the Soviet Union, "

So u see ,,what the Americans thought were thier WMD's was actually Russian Made WMD's,,,
thats why Russia went into Syria to dis-mantle the WMD's.

And America let them.

they were WMD's but whose??

"The people of Iraq want to avoid war, but not at any price,
because we will not give up our independence,
dignity and right to live and act freely,"

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
Last updated at: Thursday, February 20, 2003.

yup.

a reply to: butcherguy

.......why would we "liberate" Iraq [load of crap], but leave a mega chemical weapons factory still functional in that territory? Are our leaders really that inept? Unbelievable.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Bush speech 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

full speech

George Bush says the failure to find WMD in Iraq is his biggest regret. He should regret trusting his gut over the intelligence

No WMD in Iraq



So he clearly says there were WMD in Iraq

And then there isn't?

Either:
1) Bush Lied
2) Screwed up

Why is it so hard to accept bush is not perfect? He a politician like all the others, subject to lie and failure.

a reply to: neformore and that gave america and their hords the right to kill million or more innocent iraqis

I mean honestly if the USA missed checking a CHEMICAL PLANT for active chemical weapons then what on earth was going through the brains of high command?

"DUUUUUH Saddam wouldn't store Chemical weapons in a chemical factory, no point checking there DERP DERP DERP"

I mean really? I find it hard to believe American military officers would be that incompetent. You would have to recruit your officers out of special needs schools and west point would have to consist of sitting around picking your noses.

a reply to: crazyewok

I am the last person to suggest Bush was "perfect". It just comes across that your usually the first person to use the "Bush Lied" gambit.

You know the U.S. gave Iraq the chemical and biological weapons.

You know Saddam used the chemical weapons on the Kurds.

You know everyone on both sides of the aisle used them same data and said the same as Bush.

You KNOW this.

I find Bush to have been a comparatively HONEST politician, in actual fact. His weakness was in trust/naivety. Obama makes Bush look like a saint when measured by "honesty".

I take this thread with a grain of salt to say the least. Especially when some of the posters pointed out the life-span issue of chemical weapons. (Perhaps the site was too contaminated for full inspection in those days and put off. With degradation of the contamination that was no longer the case?)

I surely don't know and that's true of all of us.

Trolling is an accepted means of killing some time and is often amusing. It's just that your "bait" is getting old.

originally posted by: nwtrucker


Trolling is an accepted means of killing some time and is often amusing. It's just that your "bait" is getting old.

Sign of a lost argument is when you cant counter someones logical points and call them trolling


All I can can say is check and mate.

To all those making excuse of why the USA may not have found WMD in Iraq.

Pathetic excuses like:
"erhaps the site was too contaminated for full inspection"

Or my favorite

"we were fighting a war"

WHAT WERE THESEGUYS DOING!

Really what were your special chemical war fare battalions doing? Lazing back at base eating Twinkies and watching reality TV? I think not.

a reply to: crazyewok

That's what I thought. LMAO.

a reply to: crazyewok

All of your points have nothing to do with Bush!

Yet, you end up blaming him.

Your last post is a perfect example. It's YOU who doesn't rebut the points.

As valid as the points are, none specifically point to Bush.

Try rebooting....LOL

See this s a funny one really when you think about it we all knew he did have WMD's look at Halabja, Northern Iraq back in the 80's the point where the WMD stories fail is it what we will see with Syria next week on the 30th Assads deadline will be here to remove fully and/or destroyed his Chemical weapons stockpiles, Chapter 7 still sits on the table with the US for airstrikes link this with Iraq

a reply to: crazyewok

u may have missed this part,, "Americans thought they were thier WMD's,,, was actually Russian Made WMD's,,, "

thats why Bush believed it all,, think Shell Game,, keep ur eye on the little ball,,

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: crazyewok

All of your points have nothing to do with Bush!

Yet, you end up blaming him.

Your last post is a perfect example. It's YOU who doesn't rebut the points.

As valid as the points are, none specifically point to Bush.

Try rebooting....LOL

1) Did he say there was active WMD in Iraq?
yes
2) Were there active WMD in Iraq?
No

So you are left with 3 options.

1) Bush lied or made a mistake, there were no WMD in Iraq.

2) There were WMD in Iraq and the USA decided to cover it up and Bush is playing the incompetent lier. Stupid cause
a) What would the USA have to gain by it? Nothing
b) Why would Bush sacrifice his reputation? He wouldn't

3) Bush was right and Iraq does have active WMD. Making you trillion dollar a year Military 100% incompetent as they clearly failed to carry out there duty's. If so all your seiner officers need acourt Martial and shooting for dereliction of duty and the Defense secretary executing for treason. O and who is the commander and cheif? mmmmm O that's right BUSH and Obama so both them need impeaching.


2) stupid so that leaves 1) or 3)