MI6 and CIA were told before invasion that Iraq had no active WMD

reply to post by neo96

The point is someone called the US and Iraq allies so what?

Erm...well maybe because it exposes the disgusting hypocrisy of the United States and Britain when considering the justifications for the Iraq War?

reply to post by neo96

The term ally or support is meaningless it does not make them "best buddies" it just a beneficial arrangement until a objective is met.

So we can apply that to Iraq and Syria then. So Iraq moved their weapons into Syria...because...until....no..no it makes no sense whatsoever.

reply to post by neo96


You provided a weak and pathetic blog to bolster this thread and win over an argument. If this was a real case then you would've opened a new thread screaming iran, iraq syria china blah blah blah. Your intention stinks.

reply to post by neo96

"old useless muntions were found" because we put boots on the ground there was no other way of that determination.

So, in direct answer to my earlier question you said you don't support military action against Syria to recover the alleged Iraqi WMDs

Yet you're justifying the invasion of Iraq which was to find the WMDs. Which incidentally wern't found, or not in the manner we were led to believe they would be.

Apparently they were moved to Syria, yet you're not in favour of attacking Syria to get the supposed weapons?

So it's all pointless then? The WMDs don't mean anything, aren't that important?

reply to post by neo96

So what does the Iran Iraq war have to do with this topic eh? What about that deflection? Or that other deflection of Invading Syria ?

Sigh....

Maybe because...some of the instances of gassings undetaken by Iraqi forces was done during the Iran-Iraq war.

A war in which the United States supported Iraq. I hope you're following this Neo...

Invading Syria is also relevant as you were the one who brought up Syria in the first place and it was a legitimate question in light of your views regarding the invasion of Iraq to recover WMDs which you then claimed were moved into Syria.

reply to post by Kram09

Erm...well maybe because it exposes the disgusting hypocrisy of the United States and Britain when considering the justifications for the Iraq War?

Funny I would say the disgusting hypocrisy of Saddam and those Eastern countries who claim they are "allies".

So we can apply that to Iraq and Syria then. So Iraq moved their weapons into Syria...because...until....no..no it makes no sense whatsoever.

Makes sense to me lot of things get lost in a war zone easy access for some people to aquire weapons of mass destruction.

Originally posted by SOLIDSNAKE101
reply to post by neo96

 

You provided a weak and pathetic blog to bolster this thread and win over an argument. If this was a real case then you would've opened a new thread screaming iran, iraq syria china blah blah blah. Your intention stinks.

edit on 18-3-2013 by SOLIDSNAKE101 because: (no reason given)

Better than posts like this one:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That "blog" did source those figures for those who bothered to read it.

By the looks of it even the sheeple Guardian regular readership are at last beginning to see sense.

reply to post by neo96

Funny I would say the disgusting hypocrisy of Saddam and those Eastern countries who claim they are "allies".

Oh I get it now! It's all Saddam's fault! Thousands dead in the Iraq War and all this time it was Saddam's attempt to assassinate the President which is the reason behind it all.

If that is what you're referring to.

"Those Eastern countries"

Which countries exactly?

Whether the stated reason was truthful or not is sort of irrelevant.

reply to post by Hopechest


Yep, like 9/11 and invading Afghanistan. Doesn't matter how it happened or who did it, just make up some story and get lots of people killed. Sounds like a good plan.

reply to post by neo96

Makes sense to me lot of things get lost in a war zone easy access for some people to aquire weapons of mass destruction.

You missed my point completely.

Yes, WMDs are hard to lose. Just like contact lenses...so which is it, they were moved to Syria and they are now in Assad's stockpile or they were just "lost" in transit?

reply to post by Kram09

So, in direct answer to my earlier question you said you don't support military action against Syria to recover the alleged Iraqi WMDs

Asked and answered

Yet you're justifying the invasion of Iraq which was to find the WMDs. Which incidentally wern't found, or not in the manner we were led to believe they would be.

Wmds weren't found because WE WENT THERE how else could they have known?

HOW ELSE?:

Apparently they were moved to Syria, yet you're not in favour of attacking Syria to get the supposed weapons?

So which way do you want to have it first your saying they don't exist now your saying the do exist and some how I want the Us to invade another country because of something that "doesn't exist"

SO really WHICH WAY IS IT?

Either Saddam had them or he didn't and if he didn't that means Syria is not going to get "invaded"

Again which way is it?

reply to post by Kram09

Maybe because...some of the instances of gassings undetaken by Iraqi forces was done during the Iran-Iraq war.

Yeah Saddam gassed people and the US pulled the trigger glad that is sorted out.

A war in which the United States supported Iraq. I hope you're following this Neo...

A war which 2 enemies were killing themselves

Invading Syria is also relevant as you were the one who brought up Syria in the first place and it was a legitimate question in light of your views regarding the invasion of Iraq to recover WMDs which you then claimed were moved into Syria.

No somehow saying Wmds were moved to Syria means they want them to be invaded.

Seriously???

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


Are you implying that the USA went to war on false intelligence?? you better watch yourself MR.. The USA farts sunshines and rainbows how dare you imply this

reply to post by neo96

So which way do you want to have it first your saying they don't exist now your saying the do exist and some how I want the Us to invade another country because of something that "doesn't exist" SO really WHICH WAY IS IT? Either Saddam had them or he didn't and if he didn't that means Syria is not going to get "invaded" Again which way is it?

It's you saying Saddam had them and moved them to Syria yet somehow you don't justify invading Syria to retrieve them. Even though by your own admission you can't know the WMDs are actually in Syria unless you have boots on the ground which is why according to you that Iraq was invaded.

reply to post by Kram09

Oh I get it now! It's all Saddam's fault! Thousands dead in the Iraq War and all this time it was Saddam's attempt to assassinate the President which is the reason behind it all.

Thousands were dying long before the US ever got there and did i say that was the reason behind the Iraq war?

No.

The assasination plot was brought up because someone actually thought the US/Iraq were ever "allies".

Originally posted by Hopechest
And to be fair here, if anyone needed to be removed it was Saddam and his regime. He had started a war with Iran, he tried to invade Kuwait, he gassed over 5000 of his own people, he was continuing a policy of torture of political enemies...the list is very long of his crimes.

Whether the stated reason was truthful or not is sort of irrelevant. You have to look at what factors are required before the world community should take action to remove someone in power. I agree with taking him out but I think it should of been done in a completely different manner that didn't put the burden of cost on us.

Yep he started a war that was encouraged by the US and he gassed his own people with US weapons and money.
Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by neo96

A war which 2 enemies were killing themselves

A war in which the United States was a supporter of Iraq. That's already established and has been established by me previously in this thread. Please refer to past posts or use Google rather than feigning ignorance.

reply to post by neo96

Thousands were dying long before the US ever got there and did i say that was the reason behind the Iraq war? No. The assasination plot was brought up because someone actually thought the US/Iraq were ever "allies".

Thousands were dying? So did that justify invasion in 2003? You did't say that but it certainly seemed like you were implying it. What's your point?

They were allies....we've been over this Neo....

reply to post by Kram09

It's you saying Saddam had them and moved them to Syria yet somehow you don't justify invading Syria to retrieve them. Even though by your own admission you can't know the WMDs are actually in Syria unless you have boots on the ground which is why according to you that Iraq was invaded

Oh but somehow people know they weren't there but they only way "the know they weren't there" is because we went to Iraq.

But then agian ATS said they werent there long before this thread ever existed, and of course ATS say the CIA and Mi6 are just a bunch of liars.

And now someone created a thread saying they are telling the "truth".