• 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?

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...

southpark-cum.jpg
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing it had something to do with the inspections that started after the Gulf War.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
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.
Click to expand...

well, speaking personally, I didn't give a fuck if he had them or not. N. Korea, Syria, and many other hostile nations had/have or are suspected of having chem weapons. Seriously, are we expected to invade all of them because they 'could wind up in the wrong hands?'
 
WakeandBake said:
well, speaking personally, I didn't give a fuck if he had them or not. N. Korea, Syria, and many other hostile nations had/have or are suspected of having chem weapons. Seriously, are we expected to invade all of them because they 'could wind up in the wrong hands?'
Click to expand...
This post makes more sense to me and I agree with it on a certain level, I just don't buy the liberal conspiracy theory that the Iraq war was started under false pretenses and was simply Bush Jr. getting revenge for his Dad / trying to break up an islamic oil cabal.
 
Last edited:
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...

Comparing policy and political matters to starting a war based on intentional lies is ludicrous. There's nothing worse any POTUS can ever do than to send troops to knowing he's lying about why.

Every POTUS has lied or deceived the public about issues. Sometimes they have to. But starting a war is not one of those times. It's like comparing jaywalking to murder.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
This post makes more sense to me and I agree with it on a certain level, I just don't buy the liberal conspiracy theory that the Iraq war was started under false pretenses and was simply Bush Jr. getting revenge for his Dad / trying to break up an islamic oil cabal.
Click to expand...

Why not? Of all the possible scenarios, it makes the most sense by far. So many influential dollars. And dollars determine everything.

We don't just preemptively invade and topple countries who may have WMDs. We just don't do it, anywhere, until Iraq? Why then?

I don't buy the revenge for his dad thing much either.

The admin/Heritage Foundation/PNAC likely recognized the strategic value of those oil fields from a defense standpoint as well, but still.
 
WakeandBake said:
Why not? Of all the possible scenarios, it makes the most sense by far. So many influential dollars. And dollars determine everything.

We don't just preemptively invade and topple countries who may have WMDs. We just don't do it, anywhere, until Iraq? Why then?

I don't buy the revenge for his dad thing much either.

The admin/Heritage Foundation/PNAC likely recognized the strategic value of those oil fields from a defense standpoint as well, but still.
Click to expand...

Because ignoring gathering threats didn't work out in the 1990's.
 
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Only brainwashed morons think they did.
 
As pessimistic and distrusting as I am of our political system, I still don't believe that we would send thousands of soldiers to die overseas under such a thin guise. I don't have to agree with the machinations of war to trust our system.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
As pessimistic and distrusting as I am of our political system, I still don't believe that we would send thousands of soldiers to die overseas under such a thin guise. I don't have to agree with the machinations of war to trust our system.
Click to expand...

ok. I believe preemtive attacks on other nations are driven by booty or territorial advantage, or both. These Middle Eastern militaries pose very little threat to the United States or her allies. There was a paper from CATO posted on this board the other day outlining as much, and Iraq's was battered by 10 years of war with Iran and by Gulf War I. A few rusty cans of chemicals are not the catalyst for the largest military the world has ever known to invade and overtake a nation. It makes no sense from a military standpoint or a strategic one.

Securing that oil in 'friendly' hands makes abundant sense from a military and an economic standpoint. Its a hard pill to swallow, but its all about the booty.

Generals gathered in their masses......
 
i honestly don't think the top guys in the military ever enthusiastically advocate for war
 
WakeandBake said:
im still not following. a band of criminal religious zealots used airplanes to attack buildings
Click to expand...

1996 - OBL issues a fatwa to drive the United States from Saudi Arabia. He gave a direct interview declaring war on the United States that was broadcast on ABC News. We ignored him.
June 1996 - Al-Q detonates a bomb outside American barracks in Khobar Towers, Saudi. 19 Americans died, 372 were injured. We ignored it.
August 1998 - Two American embassies were bombed, killing hundreds. We ignored it.
October 2000 - Al-Q bombs the U.S.S. Cole. 17 Americans die and 39 more are injured. We ignored it.

After September 11th, President Bush made the decision that America could no longer afford to ignore threats. So did Congress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top