[PublicAnimalNo9]

Proculation Proculation:

They invaded Iraq only in March 2003 and they said Saddam had WMD and maybe some links with Al-Qaeda. Both were lies but it was not about 9/11.

The WMDs were lies? Well this certainly flies in the face of cold hard fact.
Fact. The US and Britain provided Saddam with the raw materials, apparatus and scientists to put together a chemical weapons program.
Fact. Since 2003 no fewer than 500 rounds of chem weapons munitions have been unearthed.
Fact. Information leaked by Iraqi sources showed that Saddam was attempting to start up a weaponized VX program as late as 1998. For those that don't know, weaponized VX makes Sarin feel like a breath of fresh air. It has been surmised also, that a nuclear response would NOT be out of turn as retaliation for a weaponized VX attack. That's how nasty the shit is.
Fact. Iraqi Air Force 2nd in command stated that 5 stripped down 737s were loaded up with chemicals and flown to Syria under the guise of a humanitarian mission. Syria had just suffered a natural disaster a few days previous to the flights.
However, I've found that MOST ppl think "nukes" when they hear WMDs. So, if that's the basis for the claim that no WMDs have been found, then yes, that is true.

[BartSimpson]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Do the Americans still have a ban on "taking out" foreign heads of state?

Unfortunately, yes, we do. Not one of Gerald Ford's better ideas.

[BartSimpson]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

It has been surmised also, that a nuclear response would NOT be out of turn as retaliation for a weaponized VX attack.

That's not a "surmise" it is a US national policy. We call it NBC, for nuclear, biological, or chemical. Meaning that the USA considers all such weapons equivalent and that any nation that uses a biological or chemical weapon against the US or any US ally is immediately subject to nuclear retaliation.

I don't know if you remember the sarin attacks in Japan, but they were initially thought to have originated with North Korea and a lot of people breathed a sigh of relief when it was found to have been the work of a Japanese cult.

Had it been determined that North Korea had deployed sarin in Tokyo it would have gotten warm and toasty in Pyongyang.

[ShepherdsDog]

North Koreans would do well to remember that they'd still be Japanese if it weren't for the Chinese, and large parts of China would still be Japanese if it weren't for the Americans. They might not have the old bushido code pulsing strongly, but they are the most technologically advanced nation on earth and their manufaturing plants could be retooled pretty quick for war production. Something that China should keep in mind. If China were to do anything 'stupid'(like let the NK attack SK or Japan), they'd have to eliminate Japan ASAP, because a remilitarized Japan would soon show the Chinese they are not a world class super power....hell China would likely not even be a regional super power.

Just on an aside, I've wondered if the Japanese industrialists would like to see the American military leave the area. Someone would need to fulfill the watchdog/guardian role against China, and in order for Japan to do so, it would need to start producing ships, tanks and aircraft. This could spell a boom for the Japanese economy, pulling it firmly out of a recession.

[commanderkai]

Robair Robair:

I'm with Zippy on this one. They were definitely using 9/11 to justify their invasion of Iraq. Before and long after the fact.

Half true. As much as people try to make the Bush administration look stupid, they handled the buildup to war quite well. Here's maybe a paraphrase of what they did.

Saddam has had connections to AQ (True, though they were old connections) and other terrorist links (very true, he was a big funder of every Palestinian group there was)

AQ attacked the USA on 9-11, and they're planning more attacks! (True)

And then, boom. People add 2+2 to get what the administration wants people to think, without actually saying it and being liable under the law. Gotta love (Sarcasm) politics.

However, September 11th wasn't a lie. There's a giant hole in Manhattan to prove it so. As much as people might think otherwise, 9-11 was used as the pretext for the War on Terror, but officially the war started with Afghanistan, and as such, Mr.Asshole in Iran is wrong.

[Zipperfish]

$1:

The WMDs were lies? Well this certainly flies in the face of cold hard fact.

No, I don't think it does. First of all, I note that you do not provide a source for any of your so-called facts. That's a bad sign.


Fact: The US Senate "Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq" found:

$1:

Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence.

and

$1:

the Committee found that the reporting generally was not well-supported by the underlying intelligence, and overstated what was known concerning the likelihood that the Iraqi UAVs were intended for use as a delivery means for biological weapons.

and

$1:

the Committee concluded that "[m]uch of the information provided or cleared by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for inclusion in Secretary Powell’s speech [to the UN] was overstated, misleading, or incorrect."

and

$1:

The Committee found that the [October 2002] white paper [on WMD] presented a significantly stronger characterization of the threat represented by Iraqi WMD than did the NIE [National Intelligence Estimates], and that that stronger characterization was not supported by the underlying intelligence.

and

$1:

The Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Sen.Jay Rockefeller, stated in press release of report's publication: “It is my belief that the Bush Administration was fixated on Iraq, and used the 9/11 attacks by al Qa’ida as justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. To accomplish this, top Administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and al Qa’ida as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11.

Source: Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq

Now let's move on to the Butler Review, the British Government's inquiry into the intelligence relating to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Fact: It concluded that:

$1:

information from another country's intelligence service on Iraqi production of chemical and biological weapons was "seriously flawed", without naming the country. It says that there was no recent intelligence to demonstrate that Iraq was a greater threat than other countries, and that the lack of any success in the UNMOVIC finding WMDs should have prompted a re-think. It states that Tony Blair's policy towards Iraq shifted because of the attacks of September 11, 2001, not because of Iraq's weapons programme, and that the government's language left the impression that there was "fuller and firmer intelligence" than was the case.

Source: Butler Review

And let's move on to the Iraq Survey Group, convened by the US Department of Defense. Fact:

$1:

ISG has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn (sic) possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but the available evidence from its investigation—including detainee interviews and document exploitation—leaves open the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq although not of a militarily significant capability.

These are not reports by a disgruntled UN, or NGOs wiht a an axe to grind. These are reports from the highest levels of government of the two nations most responsible for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Bush lied. Blair lied. Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands died.

[GreenTiger]

This jackass is arguing that the attacks didn't happen in the first place. The Lies about Iraq are secondary. This did happen. The World Trade Center did not suddenly dis appear they were attacked by terrorists with hijacked airplanes.

If Amadinejad would stop smoking his camel shit cigarettes he might realize it himself.

[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

$1:

The WMDs were lies? Well this certainly flies in the face of cold hard fact.

No, I don't think it does. First of all, I note that you do not provide a source for any of your so-called facts. That's a bad sign.

Actually, there have been WMDs (which can be classified as nuclear, chemical, or biological agents) discovered, but most of it was left overs from before the Gulf War that Saddam "forgot" to disclose.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918

Of course, old weapons don't show signs of a new program, however, WMDs are WMDs.

[Zipperfish]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

$1:

The WMDs were lies? Well this certainly flies in the face of cold hard fact.

No, I don't think it does. First of all, I note that you do not provide a source for any of your so-called facts. That's a bad sign.

Actually, there have been WMDs (which can be classified as nuclear, chemical, or biological agents) discovered, but most of it was left overs from before the Gulf War that Saddam "forgot" to disclose.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918

Of course, old weapons don't show signs of a new program, however, WMDs are WMDs.

I don't buy that. It's graspeing at starws. Clearly the indication being given by Bush and Blair was that an attack, possibly on the US or Britain, using Weapons of Mass Destrcution was an miminent threat.

George Bush, Sept 12, 2002

$1:

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

Georage Bush, Oct 5 2002

$1:

Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons.

yadda yadda yadda ad nauseum

In fact, the report you show is in reference to a small find of some old supplies from the 80s, that were no longer suited to their origianal use. If anything, these paltry findings indicate that Saddam was indeed trying to get rid of his WMD. Certinly that pittance didn't justify violence against the people of Iraq on that horrific scale.

It should also be noted that Bush and Cheney both later admitted that no stockpiles of WMD had been found--so why the warmongers persist in the idea is beyond me.

[Zipperfish]

GreenTiger GreenTiger:

This jackass is arguing that the attacks didn't happen in the first place. The Lies about Iraq are secondary. This did happen. The World Trade Center did not suddenly dis appear they were attacked by terrorists with hijacked airplanes.

If Amadinejad would stop smoking his camel shit cigarettes he might realize it himself.

Good point. I'm still sore about Iraq.

[Toro]

As if we didn't need another reason to know that Iran is run by batshit insane people.

[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I don't buy that. It's graspeing at starws. Clearly the indication being given by Bush and Blair was that an attack, possibly on the US or Britain, using Weapons of Mass Destrcution was an miminent threat.

You make it sound like I really care what they were indicating. I really don't. I provided a source that you think didn't exist. Therefore, you are wrong.

$1:

In fact, the report you show is in reference to a small find of some old supplies from the 80s, that were no longer suited to their origianal use. If anything, these paltry findings indicate that Saddam was indeed trying to get rid of his WMD. Certinly that pittance didn't justify violence against the people of Iraq on that horrific scale.

Sigh. I still don't care. You wanted a source for said fact, I provided a source for said fact. I admitted everything you freaking said about how they're old weapons that are degraded, but that doesn't change the fact that WMDs are still WMDs.

You wanted a source, I gave you one. That's the end of my involvement in this.

[DerbyX]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Sigh. I still don't care. You wanted a source for said fact, I provided a source for said fact. I admitted everything you freaking said about how they're old weapons that are degraded, but that doesn't change the fact that WMDs are still WMDs.

You wanted a source, I gave you one. That's the end of my involvement in this.

Really? Correct me if I'm wrong but you supported Iraq based on a few sparse points which included the UN point previously debated and debunked.

Can't you just admit the Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation was a hideous crime with no justification and bush deserves to swing from the same rope saddam did.

[KorbenDeck]

I knew it!, I always knew the World Trade Centers never existed! The whole time it was a lie! With mirrors and smoke and stuff

[Zipperfish]

commanderkai commanderkai:

You make it sound like I really care what they were indicating. I really don't.

No I'm sure you don't care. Why bother posting then?

$1:

I provided a source that you think didn't exist. Therefore, you are wrong.

Nice grasping at straws. No one ever doubted Saddam had chemical weapons--at least no one that has an inkling of history in the area, which apparently doesn't include you. But the evidence is absolutely clear that Saddam had destroyed his WMD capability. What this military source allegedly found (the source is classified, apparently), after some five years of scouring the country, was a handful of duds from their past program.

That is one weak fucking argument.

Almost as weak as your Saddam / Al Qaeada "connections" argument. Let me guess--a highly placed Al Qaeda operative once used the same crapper as Saddam Hussein, right? Therefore there is a connection, ergo everyone else is wrong?

Again, anyone with an inkling of the history of the area--and again I stress that this does not include you--would know that the Islamist Al Qaeda were fundamentally inimical to Saddam's secular Ba'ath party.

$1:

In the lead up to the Iraq War, U.S. President George W. Bush alleged that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and militant group al-Qaeda might conspire to launch terrorist attacks on the United States, basing the administration's rationale for war, in part, on this allegation and others. The consensus of intelligence experts has been that these contacts never led to an operational relationship, and that consensus is backed up by reports from the independent 9/11 Commission and by declassified Defense Department reports as well as by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, whose 2006 report of Phase II of its investigation into prewar intelligence reports concluded that there was no evidence of ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Critics of the Bush Administration have said Bush was intentionally building a case for war with Iraq without regard to factual evidence. On April 29, 2007, former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said on 60 Minutes, "We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period."

Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations

$1:

Sigh. I still don't care.

Yes you keep saying that. Seeing as you so wholeheartedly support the torture of Muslim children, I imagine you wouldn't care much about a few thousands of dead ones over a war based on lies.