• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

WMDs found in Iraq?

Bake chooses your opinion for you. Apparently you two haven't met.
 
shorty not-taking the hard right position would be a surprise; sorry not sorry
 
Shorty said:
Was that directed at me? The Iraq war was a horrible mistake. There is no justifying it, IMO.
Click to expand...

Yeah it was because I wanted to be snarky back to you. ;)

I just find it difficult to discuss the issue of WMD in Iraq when most American people still believe a) they were ever there in any imminently dangerous capacity or that b) it was why we invaded that country. I also find it difficult to stomach that people who are so adamant about the sanctity of life and about the scrutiny of their tax dollars and spending wrt domestic programs like jobs programs and education and food stamps can support this horseshit.

I guess i lost my otherwise cool head. my apologies.
 
not to mention the national debt watchers who want to tax the poor and cut their services for some skin in the game so they 'understand money' (or something like that) while a trillion dollars is spent killing people to open the door for big time oil corporations who are doing really well to make more money. doesn't really add up for me and makes me act like an asshole :noidea:
 
I'm just going to throw this out there. Somebody - and I think y'all know who - should hang for putting our troops in this position. I don't care what party you vote for or your thoughts on the war in Iraq. Exposing troops to chemical weapons without preparation is depraved.
 
pourdeac said:
Thanks. I don't think anyone was hiding the fact that western companies would get back into Iraq and make money. At one time didn't they claim the war would pay for itself because of opening up oil?

IMO what happened in 2002 was just an extension of 1991-92. I think we were sort of backed into a corner and there was no easy way to unwind it other than go in and finish what we should have finished in 1992. Oil was absolutely a part of it, but I think there were a lot of other reasons that when combined almost made it necessary. That's not really "supporting" the war, but then again I don't see it as a one-off situation. If you supported 1991 then 2002 had to happen at some point, either in 1992 or in 2002. IMO it was all caused by adhering the balance of power doctrine more than anything else.
Click to expand...

 
WakeandBake said:
meh whatever Wingor.
Click to expand...

icpkro.png
 
What a strange article. It took the WMD element and used it to completely bash Bush anyway. A couple things...

The justification for war was not simply that he had an ongoing chemical weapons program. It was that he was misleading investigators, hiding munitions, had an ongoing chemical weapons program, and that the weapons may fall into the hands of bad guys. This story verifies the first two (which we knew already, although not to the extent of 5000 weapons and the stockpiles indicated), and then openly frets about the 4th at the end. The difference is that back then we feared he may sell what he had to bad guys and now we fear the bad guys will simply take them.

The article confirms hidden stockpiles. In some cases, they were mislabeled (a common practice to deceive, per the article), and in some cases they were hidden and buried (also common practice). It also appears they were sometimes simply lost in the shuffle.

They were not inert or useless as RJ claims. Many were, but even the crappy ones were able to cause damage to our troops. In some cases-- and probably more cases than we know-- they were used as IEDs.

The US connection here is a bit exaggerated and I think it is offered up as an explanation as to why they weren't divulged. I don't buy it. A chemical used in the creation of mustard gas was purchased from two US companies in the 80s and some used a US weapon design for delivery. Big whoop. I wouldn't expect the Iraqis to design their own delivery system from scratch and the chemical in question is commonly used in other products, hence the fact that it was even available for sale in the first place. It does, however, seem plausible that the larger European connection may have been enough to keep these reports hidden.

Overall and from history's standpoint, I don't think it moves the needle much either way regarding the decision to invade Iraq. Maybe a bit more in Bush's favor, but not much. Disbanding the Iraqi army did a lot more damage than anything else, and that can't be changed or "discovered" at this juncture.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
What a strange article. It took the WMD element and used it to completely bash Bush anyway. A couple things...

The justification for war was not simply that he had an ongoing chemical weapons program. It was that he was misleading investigators, hiding munitions, had an ongoing chemical weapons program, and that the weapons may fall into the hands of bad guys. This story verifies the first two (which we knew already, although not to the extent of 5000 weapons and the stockpiles indicated), and then openly frets about the 4th at the end. The difference is that back then we feared he may sell what he had to bad guys and now we fear the bad guys will simply take them.

The article confirms hidden stockpiles. In some cases, they were mislabeled (a common practice to deceive, per the article), and in some cases they were hidden and buried (also common practice). It also appears they were sometimes simply lost in the shuffle.

They were not inert or useless as RJ claims. Many were, but even the crappy ones were able to cause damage to our troops. In some cases-- and probably more cases than we know-- they were used as IEDs.

The US connection here is a bit exaggerated and I think it is offered up as an explanation as to why they weren't divulged. I don't buy it. A chemical used in the creation of mustard gas was purchased from two US companies in the 80s and some used a US weapon design for delivery. Big whoop. I wouldn't expect the Iraqis to design their own delivery system from scratch and the chemical in question is commonly used in other products, hence the fact that it was even available for sale in the first place. It does, however, seem plausible that the larger European connection may have been enough to keep these reports hidden.

Overall and from history's standpoint, I don't think it moves the needle much either way regarding the decision to invade Iraq. Maybe a bit more in Bush's favor, but not much. Disbanding the Iraqi army did a lot more damage than anything else, and that can't be changed or "discovered" at this juncture.
Click to expand...

Hey man tell yourself whatever you need to I guess. All of the shit you posted up there still doesn't warrant invasion of Iraq. Other nations hostile to US have chemical weapons or bluff about having them and we don't invade them because the booty isn't great enough.
 
ELC that's absolute crap! Rice, Cheney, Wolfowitz all went Sunday morning shows talking about the next cloud being a "mushroom cloud". They stated as fact that there was a viable and ongoing WMD AND nuclear program. W himself often talked about the ongoing nuclear program.
 
RJKarl said:
ELC that's absolute crap! Rice, Cheney, Wolfowitz all went Sunday morning shows talking about the next cloud being a "mushroom cloud". They stated as fact that there was a viable and ongoing WMD AND nuclear program. W himself often talked about the ongoing nuclear program.
Click to expand...

Going on talk shows and promoting a false narrative? Say it ain't so. Can't believe an admin would stoop to that.

I actually agree with RJ. Deceiving the public for political gain should never be acceptable. If only we had a recent example of this action. If only.
 
Wrangor said:
Going on talk shows and promoting a false narrative? Say it ain't so. Can't believe an admin would stoop to that.

I actually agree with RJ. Deceiving the public for political gain should never be acceptable. If only we had a recent example of this action. If only.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
Can someone tell me how or why it is that Saddam had poison gas WMDs in the late 80's and early 90's, but didn't have any more by 2002? Seriously asking here, is there some commonly known report from the 90's showing (proving) that his stock of weapons was completely gone?

My point in asking is that I don't understand the certainty that some have, regarding the non-existence of the WMDs. How is it that liberal Joe Blow on the street is so sure that Saddam didn't have more poison gas, and therefore believes that the whole war in Iraq was based on a lie.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top