About Those WMD's

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Magarhe wrote:
I’ve got a nice bridge for sale in Sydney, it spans the harbour and people will pay you to use it. Interested?

Please explain the common sense behind the strategy of getting rid of your weapons when invaded.

Please explain how, when the full might of all modern satellite surveilance was turned on Iraq, they managed to get those weapons out.

While I’m not saying this is slam dunk material, it’s worth looking into don’t you think?
[/quote]

I said the same thing about the Downing Street Memo, the same thing is happening about Bush wanting to bomb Al Jazeera, and the Doctrine for a New American Century. No one cares about any of that though.

Of course its worth looking into. And being as this would absolutely benefit the administration, if its anywhere close to true, they will expand on it and use it in speeches for the next ten years.

However, I just think you’re jumping the gun here. Things are chaotic over there, and there’s no way to be sure about anything.

22

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Magarhe wrote:
No, the stunning lack of knowledge of most Americans amazes me. The weird thing is, you don’t even know you are deliberately misinformed.

It has amazed me for a long time how people could possibly be so ignorant and yet, here is the proof.

THERE ARE NO WEAPONS. THERE NEVER WERE ANY. YOU HAVE BEEN LIED TO. WAKE UP TO YOURSELVES.

…

Also, you do realise the chemical weapons Saddam used on the Kurds were supplied to Saddam by the USA? ??? you do know that, right? Or is that just one more gem of knowledge you’ve had screened out of your media?

…

Which is it?

Were there no weapons or were they supplied by the US?

You cannot even remember what you wrote earlier in the same post.

It is no wonder you have no understanding of history.[/quote]

i thought i was the only one who caugth that…also i could have sworn the bulk of iraq’s weapons was supplied by the european countries and russia???

for instance IRAQ’S invasion of iran came in the middle of when it was receiveing 240 new air and helicopters from USSR as well as 16 dassault mirage f 1eqs from FRANCE the Iraqs airforce comprises of Migs 25s and mirage f1eqs yet the U.S. gets blamed for arming Iraq when it was russia and france…so you ever wonder why france opposed the war so much ? Thats how the made there money selling stuff to Iraq

23

Let’s see if all of the so-called informed (i.e. well-read in the recent history of the Middle East) are aware of what has actually taken place over the last 20 years or so.

Did you know that during Iraq’s war with Iran that the U.S. supplied Saddam with chemical weapons and the intelligence he needed to use them effectively? This was the United States government’s way of keeping Iran in check. The U.S. knew Iran would kick Saddam’s ass otherwise. In other words, Iraq wasn’t even a threat to its own neighbors back in the 1980’s until the U.S. helped him out.

Did you know that before invading Kuwait in 1990 Saddam asked the U.S. envoy to Iraq if there would be any repercussions if he invaded Kuwait (which Iraq considers to be its southernmost provence)? The U.S. envoy told him that the U.S. had no interests in any dispute between Iraq an Kuwait. (Of course, that turned out to be a bit of a fib.) So, Saddam was such a rogue threat to the world that he asked us for permission before he invaded one of his neighbors. Sounds like a totally unpredictable threat to liberty and democracy to me.

Did you know that the U.N. inspectors from the early to mid 90’s have all said that Saddam’s WMD programs were completely dismantled and destroyed by the inspectors by about 1995? During the run-up to the war in 2003, they were screaming this fact at the top of their lungs (Scott Ritter in particular) and no one would listen.

Did you know that the only reason Saddam attacked the Kurds after Gulf War I was because the U.S. was telling them that we would support them if they rose up against Saddam? They started making noise and preparing for civil war on the assumption that they would have back up. When Saddam moved on them, the U.S. government said, in effect, “we meant that we support you ‘in spirit’.” If you don’t know the rest, Saddam had one of his top commanders gas several Kurdish villages with chemical weapons left over from the Iran/Iraq war. For those of you who want to jump on this little tidbit, this was before the U.N. inspectors had started their work in force. The remainder of the chemical weapon stockpile was destroyed over the next few years.

Did you know that after the no-fly zones were established Saddam couldn’t even send a helicopter north or south without permission from us? Any military activity in the no-fly zones that looked even remotely suspicious was immediately bombed by F-16’s or shot down by F-15’s. No threat there. None at all
Did you know that President Bush actually kicked out the inspectors in 2003 after they had told the U.N. that Saddam had responded to Bush’s recent threats by giving them TOTAL access to anything and everything they wanted to see, and that they hadn’t found shit? If you didn’t know thus little tidbit, then you have absorbed Bush’s revisionist view of history, because a quick internet search will show you the fallacy of the current “official” version of events.
Yuppers, sounds to me like Saddam was a complete and total menace to the free world. Don’t you fucking believe it! We didn’t invade Iraq because of WMD’s or to “free the people” or any other reason that you hear repeated on CNN every day.

If there is anyone who didn’t know about these juicy little tidbits of history, then I suggest you fire up Google and get to work. You need to be doing your research rather than telling others that they need to brush up on their history.

In case you’re wondering, I didn’t find most of this stuff on “conspiracy sites” on the internet, I lived the majority of it from inside the U.S. military. Seeing truly is believing. Happy Google’ing…

24

[quote]Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
Let’s see if all of the so-called informed (i.e. well-read in the recent history of the Middle East) are aware of what has actually taken place over the last 20 years or so.

Did you know that during Iraq’s war with Iran that the U.S. supplied Saddam with chemical weapons and the intelligence he needed to use them effectively? This was the United States government’s way of keeping Iran in check. The U.S. knew Iran would kick Saddam’s ass otherwise. In other words, Iraq wasn’t even a threat to its own neighbors back in the 1980’s until the U.S. helped him out.
[/quote]

Intelligence yes. Chemical weapons, I don’t think so. You have to prove this.

This is not accurate. He chose to misinterpret the statement and invaded.

His mistake.

The UN inpectors reports were mixed. Some said yes, some said no.

You are mixing up the Shia uprising and the Kurds. What Bush’s dad did was shameful.

Helicopters were not included in the no-fly zone. Schwarzkopf blundered during the surrender negotioations.
…

If there is anyone who didn’t know about these juicy little tidbits of history, then I suggest you fire up Google and get to work. You need to be doing your research rather than telling others that they need to brush up on their history.

In case you’re wondering, I didn’t find most of this stuff on “conspiracy sites” on the internet, I lived the majority of it from inside the U.S. military. Seeing truly is believing. Happy Google’ing…[/quote]

You need to do a little homework.

25

[quote]Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
Let’s see if all of the so-called informed (i.e. well-read in the recent history of the Middle East) are aware of what has actually taken place over the last 20 years or so.

Did you know that during Iraq’s war with Iran that the U.S. supplied Saddam with chemical weapons and the intelligence he needed to use them effectively? This was the United States government’s way of keeping Iran in check. The U.S. knew Iran would kick Saddam’s ass otherwise. In other words, Iraq wasn’t even a threat to its own neighbors back in the 1980’s until the U.S. helped him out.

Did you know that before invading Kuwait in 1990 Saddam asked the U.S. envoy to Iraq if there would be any repercussions if he invaded Kuwait (which Iraq considers to be its southernmost provence)? The U.S. envoy told him that the U.S. had no interests in any dispute between Iraq an Kuwait. (Of course, that turned out to be a bit of a fib.) So, Saddam was such a rogue threat to the world that he asked us for permission before he invaded one of his neighbors. Sounds like a totally unpredictable threat to liberty and democracy to me.

Did you know that the U.N. inspectors from the early to mid 90’s have all said that Saddam’s WMD programs were completely dismantled and destroyed by the inspectors by about 1995? During the run-up to the war in 2003, they were screaming this fact at the top of their lungs (Scott Ritter in particular) and no one would listen.

Did you know that the only reason Saddam attacked the Kurds after Gulf War I was because the U.S. was telling them that we would support them if they rose up against Saddam? They started making noise and preparing for civil war on the assumption that they would have back up. When Saddam moved on them, the U.S. government said, in effect, “we meant that we support you ‘in spirit’.” If you don’t know the rest, Saddam had one of his top commanders gas several Kurdish villages with chemical weapons left over from the Iran/Iraq war. For those of you who want to jump on this little tidbit, this was before the U.N. inspectors had started their work in force. The remainder of the chemical weapon stockpile was destroyed over the next few years.

Did you know that after the no-fly zones were established Saddam couldn’t even send a helicopter north or south without permission from us? Any military activity in the no-fly zones that looked even remotely suspicious was immediately bombed by F-16’s or shot down by F-15’s. No threat there. None at all
Did you know that President Bush actually kicked out the inspectors in 2003 after they had told the U.N. that Saddam had responded to Bush’s recent threats by giving them TOTAL access to anything and everything they wanted to see, and that they hadn’t found shit? If you didn’t know thus little tidbit, then you have absorbed Bush’s revisionist view of history, because a quick internet search will show you the fallacy of the current “official” version of events.
Yuppers, sounds to me like Saddam was a complete and total menace to the free world. Don’t you fucking believe it! We didn’t invade Iraq because of WMD’s or to “free the people” or any other reason that you hear repeated on CNN every day.

If there is anyone who didn’t know about these juicy little tidbits of history, then I suggest you fire up Google and get to work. You need to be doing your research rather than telling others that they need to brush up on their history.

In case you’re wondering, I didn’t find most of this stuff on “conspiracy sites” on the internet, I lived the majority of it from inside the U.S. military. Seeing truly is believing. Happy Google’ing…[/quote]

and your point is what? most informed people know this already…they being made at least i was trying to make is that United states is not alone everytime the subject of who suplied weapons to Iraq, Russia and France also supplied a lot of weapons to Iraq. However everybody is so caught on what the media feeds them that the disregard the fact that France and Russia provided Iraq with the bulk of its weaponry…which in my opinion is why they were so adamant in opposing the united states because of the money they would loose. So just don’t look one aspect of the story look at the whole picture…

26

[quote]Mad Titan wrote:
Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
Let’s see if all of the so-called informed (i.e. well-read in the recent history of the Middle East) are aware of what has actually taken place over the last 20 years or so.

Did you know that during Iraq’s war with Iran that the U.S. supplied Saddam with chemical weapons and the intelligence he needed to use them effectively? This was the United States government’s way of keeping Iran in check. The U.S. knew Iran would kick Saddam’s ass otherwise. In other words, Iraq wasn’t even a threat to its own neighbors back in the 1980’s until the U.S. helped him out.

Did you know that before invading Kuwait in 1990 Saddam asked the U.S. envoy to Iraq if there would be any repercussions if he invaded Kuwait (which Iraq considers to be its southernmost provence)? The U.S. envoy told him that the U.S. had no interests in any dispute between Iraq an Kuwait. (Of course, that turned out to be a bit of a fib.) So, Saddam was such a rogue threat to the world that he asked us for permission before he invaded one of his neighbors. Sounds like a totally unpredictable threat to liberty and democracy to me.

Did you know that the U.N. inspectors from the early to mid 90’s have all said that Saddam’s WMD programs were completely dismantled and destroyed by the inspectors by about 1995? During the run-up to the war in 2003, they were screaming this fact at the top of their lungs (Scott Ritter in particular) and no one would listen.

Did you know that the only reason Saddam attacked the Kurds after Gulf War I was because the U.S. was telling them that we would support them if they rose up against Saddam? They started making noise and preparing for civil war on the assumption that they would have back up. When Saddam moved on them, the U.S. government said, in effect, “we meant that we support you ‘in spirit’.” If you don’t know the rest, Saddam had one of his top commanders gas several Kurdish villages with chemical weapons left over from the Iran/Iraq war. For those of you who want to jump on this little tidbit, this was before the U.N. inspectors had started their work in force. The remainder of the chemical weapon stockpile was destroyed over the next few years.

Did you know that after the no-fly zones were established Saddam couldn’t even send a helicopter north or south without permission from us? Any military activity in the no-fly zones that looked even remotely suspicious was immediately bombed by F-16’s or shot down by F-15’s. No threat there. None at all
Did you know that President Bush actually kicked out the inspectors in 2003 after they had told the U.N. that Saddam had responded to Bush’s recent threats by giving them TOTAL access to anything and everything they wanted to see, and that they hadn’t found shit? If you didn’t know thus little tidbit, then you have absorbed Bush’s revisionist view of history, because a quick internet search will show you the fallacy of the current “official” version of events.
Yuppers, sounds to me like Saddam was a complete and total menace to the free world. Don’t you fucking believe it! We didn’t invade Iraq because of WMD’s or to “free the people” or any other reason that you hear repeated on CNN every day.

If there is anyone who didn’t know about these juicy little tidbits of history, then I suggest you fire up Google and get to work. You need to be doing your research rather than telling others that they need to brush up on their history.

In case you’re wondering, I didn’t find most of this stuff on “conspiracy sites” on the internet, I lived the majority of it from inside the U.S. military. Seeing truly is believing. Happy Google’ing…

and your point is what? most informed people know this already…they being made at least i was trying to make is that United states is not alone everytime the subject of who suplied weapons to Iraq, Russia and France also supplied a lot of weapons to Iraq. However everybody is so caught on what the media feeds them that the disregard the fact that France and Russia provided Iraq with the bulk of its weaponry…which in my opinion is why they were so adamant in opposing the united states because of the money they would loose. So just don’t look one aspect of the story look at the whole picture…
[/quote]

The point being that Saddam wasn’t a threat to anybody other than his own people. He couldn’t even have held his own against iran without our help.

Yes, the bulk of their conventional weaponry was French and Russian. French-made airdef radars that were destroyed in the first 45min of Gulf War I and Russian fighters that were flown straight to Iran after several were shot down by F-15’s. The point being that the chemical weapons supplied to him for use against the Iranians (given to him expressly for that purpose) came from U.S. stockpiles because we were so afraid of Iran at the time. Have you seen the photo of Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands in Baghdad in 1983? What do you think Rumsfeld was there for?

27

Times and views change dude.

28

[quote]Which is it?

Were there no weapons or were they supplied by the US?

You cannot even remember what you wrote earlier in the same post.

It is no wonder you have no understanding of history.[/quote]

Okay, I’m not trying to agree with the original poster, but this arguement is complete bullshit.

There is something called time. Something that was there ten years ago can be destroyed, as Saddam said he did, later on.

Now, I’m not saying Saddam was trustworthy or anything else, just that your line of argument is absolute bullshit, given the timelines involved.

You should know that…

29

brad61 wrote:
"Wait, you mean to tell me we invaded Iraq with the full force of the US military, to prevent Saddam from using WMDs, and then we didn’t find any?

WTF ??? OOPS ???"

Great post, bradley. I’m glad we didn’t state any other aims or goals. Make sure you don’t drive, you have an ENORMOUS blind spot.

“But seriously… Just because one Iraqi exile says Saddam sent the WMDs to Syria, I’m supposed to believe that?”

It’s amusing that you would sooner believe some little dave (140 pounds of pure pussy) at the new york times over guys THAT ARE INVOLVED.

“How frigging gullible do you have to be, to believe THAT guy?”

From the guy who believed in john kerry.

“He hadn’t been inside Iraq for 15 years, before the war started, so how the hell would he know.”

Yet, it doesn’t warrant any discussion? How about the opinions you swallow from guys that have NEVER been there?

“Isn’t this exactly the kind of “bad intelligence” on Iraqi WMDs that Bush is blaming the CIA for? Getting one fishy-sounding guy to make wild claims about WMD is almost exactly how we got into the war in the first place. Now we’re supposed to fall for it again?”

Really? What a nice little fellow. Just to get your facts straight, THE MAJORITY OF THE WORLDS’ INTELLIGENCE SERVICES BELIEVED THE EXACT SAME THING.

Interesting that you choose to believe saddam over afore mentioned intelligence services.

“Bush is about to ask Congress for another 120 BILLION DOLLARS of US taxpayer money, for the next year’s worth of military spending, just on Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Oh, I see. You are against both wars?
Must be a lonely little fellow.

“We spend 1.5 billion tax dollars PER WEEK in Iraq.”

Oh, back to Iraq. Please be consistent. What is stopping terrorism at it’s source worth to you?

I’d be interested in some hard numbers.

“Think about that! You really want to tell me, that since there was no WMD in Iraq”

There were of course. Plenty of undeclared weapons. saddam pouring money into R and D, preventing his scientists from leaving the country, on and freakin’ on.

Oh, don’t let the truth get in the way of your little rant (it makes a better democrat of you).

“and that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Tenet and Powell were all dead wrong about WMDs,”

Wait a second. First of all, they weren’t “all wrong.” Second, please include ALL THE leaders of your party. Would you care to read some quotes?

“that you think it’s a good idea to spend 1.5 billion dollars A WEEK just to make sure that Iraqis can vote?”

What was the War for American Independence costing France per day in adjusted dollars?

I’m glad you think creating democracy should be on the cheap.

I’m glad france didn’t agree with you in 1777-1783.

“Because in the last election the Iraqis voted for a Islamic system of government (the Iraqi constitution they voted for includes Sharia law, which is fundamentalist Islam).”

That’s democracy. bill clinton was President for eight years. I didn’t like it, but there it is.

Oh, “In God we trust” is all over our currency. Are you up in arms?

“Couldn’t we be using those hundreds of billions of tax dollars better we’re spending by destrying and then rebuilding Iraq, by spending at home in the USA?”

Reminds me of the guys protesting Apollo 11. Look up their quotes. “We shouldn’t go to the moon because bradley’s family is in need.”

Bullshit.

“Do you guys really care so deeply about a democracy in Iraq?”

I care deeply about democracy being our best defense against facism.

“Because I bet most Americans couldn’t find Iraq on a map if their lives depended on it.”

Time to leave your trailer. You’ve been watching too much jay leno. The United States has the top minds on the planet.

JeffR

30

Thanks Jeff_with_a_G and vroom, you saved me saying the same thing in response to Zap … the fact that the US supplied weapons in the past does NOT mean that those same weapons were still around recently.

Zap don’t get me wrong, it is the lying over the reasons for the invasion that bug me. If instead they had been honest and said “we know there is nothing there, we know Saddam is not a threat but we are going in to make improvements in the country as peacefully as possible but make no mistake WE ARE GOING IN and WE ARE TAKING SADDAM OUT”, that I would agree with.

I wish they had taken him out 15 years ago, the country would have settled down by now, most likely. Especially since something like 75% of the population of Iraq are under 15 years old. They would have grown up without Saddam, and with a government that was helped into place by USA, and probably with good USA relations.

As for the recent invasion, I would have gone about it differently. For a start, after hiring the 40,000 odd Sunni ex-government workers, the clerks and ordinary folk, and then firing the lot of them, and telling them they can never, ever work in public positions of any kind, and therefore cannot work at all and are doomed to poverty, and really making them mad, a virtual army of unemployed povernous people who have no prospects yet were used to great power under Saddam, and know where the weapons (ordinary, not WMD) are - well I wouldn’t have done that for a start. The insurgency grew rapidly once you guys did that. What did you expect? It was a dumb move. Overnight you made an army of 40,000+ angry fellas … instead of converting them to the new regime, giving them opportunities for a new life and drawing on their skills as administrators. Nice one!

Sometimes I wonder if the intention was to create this insurgency. If not, then leadership is really, really dumb.

31

magarhe,

I’ve read your two posts in this thread.

I’m interested to know which country you were born in/live in now.

It helps me to understand where you are coming from.

Thanks,

JeffR

32

[quote]Magarhe wrote:
Thanks Jeff_with_a_G and vroom, you saved me saying the same thing in response to Zap … the fact that the US supplied weapons in the past does NOT mean that those same weapons were still around recently.

Zap don’t get me wrong, it is the lying over the reasons for the invasion that bug me. If instead they had been honest and said “we know there is nothing there, we know Saddam is not a threat but we are going in to make improvements in the country as peacefully as possible but make no mistake WE ARE GOING IN and WE ARE TAKING SADDAM OUT”, that I would agree with.

I wish they had taken him out 15 years ago, the country would have settled down by now, most likely. Especially since something like 75% of the population of Iraq are under 15 years old. They would have grown up without Saddam, and with a government that was helped into place by USA, and probably with good USA relations.

As for the recent invasion, I would have gone about it differently. For a start, after hiring the 40,000 odd Sunni ex-government workers, the clerks and ordinary folk, and then firing the lot of them, and telling them they can never, ever work in public positions of any kind, and therefore cannot work at all and are doomed to poverty, and really making them mad, a virtual army of unemployed povernous people who have no prospects yet were used to great power under Saddam, and know where the weapons (ordinary, not WMD) are - well I wouldn’t have done that for a start. The insurgency grew rapidly once you guys did that. What did you expect? It was a dumb move. Overnight you made an army of 40,000+ angry fellas … instead of converting them to the new regime, giving them opportunities for a new life and drawing on their skills as administrators. Nice one!

Sometimes I wonder if the intention was to create this insurgency. If not, then leadership is really, really dumb.

[/quote]

Getting rid of the Baathists was a damned if you do and damned if you don’t proposition.

If these guys remained in power there would have been a shitload of pissed of Shiites.

33

How did they conduct 56 flights out of a NO FLY zone guarded by coalition forces??? Undetected???

TNT

34

[quote]TNT-CDN wrote:
How did they conduct 56 flights out of a NO FLY zone guarded by coalition forces??? Undetected???

TNT[/quote]

Are you talking about helicopter flights? The no-fly rule applied to fixed wing aircraft only.

They could fly helicopters.

35

[quote]TNT-CDN wrote:
How did they conduct 56 flights out of a NO FLY zone guarded by coalition forces? Undetected?

TNT[/quote]

The flights were supposedly in hollowed out commercial airliners that were allowed to fly out of Iraq.