- Joined
- Jun 21, 2013
- Messages
- 16,763
- Reaction score
- 4,344
- Location
- Melbourne Florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Because they had been loyal to him for too long. Just like we put the top Nazi's on trial in Germany.
if the problem was saddam and his sons, why did we also dismantle the entire baath party and republican guard?
You are all over the place here. We didn't have to go to Iraq any more than we had to go to Europe. Neither were a immanent threat to mainland US.
That said, both dictators had to be stopped. We have put ourselves out there as the worlds police. Once you decide to be the bad boy on the block, you cant back down.
That bizarre accusation proves the US is to blame for Saddam committing genocide his second time?
Do you even realize that in blaming the US you are blaming the victims? You are claiming their actions justified the genocide. If their actions do not justify the genocide, then no one is to blame but Saddam.
Support for the war, please. Quote me supporting the war like you think I support the war. Just because something had to be done, don't mean I like it or worse love it.No, you're just frantically moving goal posts to justify your support of forever war.
WW II was the last declared war, the last one we truley won. It was the last one with clear goals and a plan to reach them, executed correctly and successfully. Undeclared imperial wars are another beast all together and we don't have a strong record with that.
We are not the wod's police, we do not need to keep acting like it. That was just a silly aside to again justify your support of forever war.
Support for the war, please. Quote me supporting the war like you think I support the war. Just because something had to be done, don't mean I like it or worse love it.
If you feel it had to be done, then you support the actions. Duh.
He may or may not have had WMDs in the normal sense, but he did kill thousands of people within his country.
He did ignore around 20 UN resolutions.
He did sent a hit out on Bush the senior.
Many believe he gave aid to Al Queda.
Those things by themselves were enough to do what we did, but should have only been enough to dethrone him and make sure his sons didn't take power. Period.
Not stay a few more years and build a new government and nation.
There was.
WMD: How it went wrong | World news | The Observer
"'There were dissenting views, analysts who were right. But the dissenters were pushed to the side.'.. It is a claim corroborated by former CIA anti-terrorism expert Larry Johnson. 'I know for certain that there were analysts in the Defence Intelligence Agency and the State Department and the CIA who took an alternative point of view. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and ultimately George Bush chose to ignore their cautions. Worst-case scenarios were being taken by policy makers who were picking and choosing intelligence,' he said."
Feel free to ignore the fact that your "facts" are not facts.
In hindsight, our intelligence isn't so intelligent, is it.
About the only intelligence I have ever believed in my life span was the photos taken from a US spy plane depicting missile installations in Cuba, which I believed are truthful. Since then intelligence from other sources, other than the USA could be construed as being doctored or inaccurate.
I'd imagine that most people might appreciate more accuracy and definition of evidence.
I agree that any reasonable person believed he had WMDs.After all this is a man who not only used WMDs once but more than a dozen times, he did ignore 20 UN resolutions he did give the impression he had WMDs.Any one who argues otherwise is a ****en retarded moronic partisan hack who belongs in the same category as birthers, truffers, Lee Harvey Oswald didn't shoot JFK, big foot believers and other conspiracy believing retards. That said all we did was make Iraq worse and waste American lives and money. Yeah Saddam killed thousands of people, but how is that any different than any other dictatorship across the world?
If you feel it had to be done, then you support the actions. Duh.
As my sources stated there was more than just two. There was many.There was two actual noted dissents within the IC, and that was that the DOE and the CIA disagreed over the nature of the building materials being ordered by Saddam - with the CIA saying that they were parts for centrifuges and the DOE saying they weren't sure. The nuclear program that tied to was the most contentious - and the one where any of the allies dissented. Biological and Chemical were pretty much shared - in fact, the Germans gave us the greatest amount of information that turned out to be false on the Bio program. Additionally, the INR tacked on a footnote that they believed that the surety levels were overstated. Furthermore, CT wasn't part of the WMD debate.
Sorry bud. Even Bush admits: White House Admits WMD Error - CBS NewsHere's a fact for you: We found two tons of enriched uranium in a nuclear facility.
As already been reported they are defunct weapons which most likely not operable.Here's one a bit more recent: Isis jihadists seize Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons stockpile.
Some people outside of DP took you seriously or something?Hey, remember a couple of years ago when Syria first started circling the drain how crazy ole cpwill was saying maybe we should send in some SF strike teams to secure and remove all that crap scattered around this area, or at least destroy it? Man, I am so glad we didn't listen to that guy.
Are you done ranting? Just admit you were wrong.In the meantime, your response is that we dismissed a member of Saddam's inner circle who saying something that could help out his boss? I mean - um, duh? Heck, I can use the fact that Cheney said that Bush made the right decision to prove that invading Iraq was a good call using that logic. There is also nothing wrong with the NSA wiretapping program, and no one in the administration has ever abused their powers - I mean, Jay Carney said so, right? Heck, the Iraqi information minister swearing there were no American troops in Iraq is credible by that reasoning.
All your "facts" turned out to be a bunch of BS.But again. Feel free to read the actual post-mortem. Mind you, I don't think you will - it would destroy a narrative that is just too emotionally rewarding. But one day you might be more interested in complicated, messy ground-truth, and when that comes, look up Robert Jervis.
As my sources stated there was more than just two. There was many.
Sorry bud. Even Bush admits: White House Admits WMD Error - CBS News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSN-Kku_rFE
As already been reported they are defunct weapons which most likely not operable.
Iraq: Islamist Militants Take Saddam Hussein Chemical Weapon Complex - TIME
Some people outside of DP took you seriously or something?
Are you done ranting? Just admit you were wrong.
All your "facts" turned out to be a bunch of BS.
Did you read the 4 sources i provided on this point?On the contrary - your sources stated that there were Iraqi members of Saddam's inner circle who told us Saddam didn't have anything, which was dismissed. Additionally, the article you cite on the IC agrees with me that the IC got it wrong.
He didnt maintain them. Those weapons went obsolete after the first gulf war!:doh I haven't been arguing we were right, I have been arguing that we were wrong about ongoing production. Bush admitting that we were wrong about that does not mean that we were wrong about him maintaining some WMD and illegal missiles.
We had more than just that data. But instead we ignored the data that went against the Bush rhetoric.All your article is is an agreement that the single claim of Nigerien yellow cake was based on bad sources, not that it was a deliberate falsehood - but that the data that we had at the time had since been superseded by other information.
Nope .However, I can't help but notice that this argument is a strawman, given that it does not address the fact that we did, in fact, find two tons of enriched uranium, though no ongoing nuclear program. Exactly as I have described.
If you read the article it points out its a dismantled facility.After however many years of sitting on a shelf? Hopefully. I'm not quite sure how stable Iraqi Mustard/Sarin is. What is relevant, however, isn't that they are (hopefully) useless in 2014, what is relevant is that they were there in 2003.
no im the king around here :2razz:Yes, people outside DP take me seriously.
:lol: oh. So we didn't find two tons of uranium?
NopeWe didn't find chemical weapons?
NopeWe didn't find illegal missiles?
We wereWe weren't wrong about the ongoing production program?
There was dissenting information that we ignored.here wasn't a CIA / DOE disagreement over the centrifuges?
Did you read the 4 sources i provided on this point?
He didnt maintain them. Those weapons went obsolete after the first gulf war!
We had more than just that data. But instead we ignored the data that went against the Bush rhetoric.
If you read the article it points out its a dismantled facility.
no im the king around here :2razz:
See above
Nopecpwill said:We didn't find chemical weapons?
DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
WASHINGTON, DC 20511
The Honorable Peter Hoekstra Chairman Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence House of Representatives Washington, DC. 20515
Dear Chairman Hoekstra: Thank you for your letter of June 19, 2006, requesting that we declassify “key points”from a National Ground Intelligence Center report on the recovery of chemical munitions in Iraq.Attached please find the requested paper.
Sincerely,
44
John D. Negroponte
UNCLASSIFIED Subject: lraqi Chemical Munitions 21June 2006 Purpose: This summary provides an unclassified overview of chemical munitions recovered in lraq since May 2004.
Key Points:
-- Since 2003 Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.
-- Despite many efforts to locate and destroy lraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.
-- Pre-Gulf War Iraqi chemical weapons could be sold on the black market. Use of these weapons by terrorists or insurgent groups would have implications for Coalition forces in Iraq. The possibility of use outside lraq cannot be ruled out.
-- The most likely munitions remaining are sarin and mustard-filled projectiles.
-- The purity of the agent inside the munitions depends on many factors,including the manufacturing process, potential additives, and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal.
-~ It has been reported in open press that insurgents and lraqi groups desire to acquire and use chemical weapons.
Nopecpwill said:We didn't find illegal missiles?
We werecpwill said:We weren't wrong about the ongoing production program?
There was dissenting information that we ignored.
You claimed there was no dissent within our community there was. There was also dissent within the international community.Yes. I wonder if you have, because when I read them, they say interesting things like, the IC was wrong, which is what I have been trying to point out to you.
One roadside bomb! Rally the troops! Found what we came for!He did maintain them - all chemical and bio weapons have a shelf life, however, the sarin artillery shells were still active enough that they could be sympathetically detonated in 2004.
You must be playing dumb now. See post #228.:lol: what, Joe Wilson saying he went and drank tea with Nigerien officials and they assured him they would never work with evil dictators because they were such nice guys?
2 sources. Within the article backed up by 6 more sources.:doh
Having a source say that "yes he had uranium, but it's okay because he had it sealed up and under guard" does not obviate the fact that he did, in fact, have two tons of enriched uranium and a bunch of other radioactive crap buried as well.
Moral of the story the program has been obsolete since the Iran-Iraq war.Yes. ALMOST as if he had RETAINED the WMD he already had WITHOUT having an ongoing production program EXACTLY as I have been saying.
Its a struggle since im not a morning person.If that's what gets you out of bed in the morning.
Either again you are playing dumb or cant read.I see above your source agreeing with me that there was, in fact, two tons of enriched uranium, although it does not address the other radioactive materials.
:dohYes, we did. Firstly because the insurgents got ahold of them, we also found some buried in facilities, and now (as reported to you) ISIS has their hands on some.
One.. One artillery shell that was detonated by rebels. So apparently we invaded a whole country over one shell! Wow! 'Merica!
All ineffective.
Key word in that letter: DEGRADED. All ineffective.So... Yup.
Hmm in fact he did have illegal missiles that reached the limit.
And we were told "he is perusing a bomb that come in the form of a mushroom cloud"Indeed we were wrong about the ongoing production program.
You are saying we "listened to the very smart people" and at the same time we ignored the same "very smart people". ... If we are going to go to war wouldnt you want to be 100% sure? Why would we ignore people and push them aside simply because they are saying something some people dont want to hear? Better to get the whole picture and actually be right before sending Americans to die and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to die. Hell, maybe that is just me tho.The DOE disagreement over centrifuges wasn't annotated to the President, the INR note on the confidence level was, as I recall, reported at the least to the NSC. Neither of which would have overridden the overwhelming assessment about Saddam's intentions to retain his WMD capability. Again, you cannot build a credible case out of the data available in 2003 the comes to the conclusion that Saddam had gotten rid of his WMD :shrug: Some very smart people at the CIA spent a lot of time trying to do precisely that in the after action review / post-mortem phase in order to highlight analytical errors and improve processes. They were unsuccessful - all you can really do is highlight the gaps and reduce the confidence levels (certainly from "it's a slam-dunk, Mr President").
With the situation in Iraq unfolding do you believe that the Iraq War was worth it?
With the situation in Iraq unfolding do you believe that the Iraq War was worth it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?