Did Saddam have WMDs after all? : ISIS Overruns Iraq Chemical Weapons 'Mega-Facility'

a reply to: butcherguy

I know.
But it was then revised.
Do we live back then or do we live here and now.

We live here and now, where and when chemical weapons are still categorized as weapons of mass destruction.

originally posted by: butcherguy
So we found WMD's... even though the story is that we never did?
And we left them there.... and didn't destroy them?

What kind of whack-a-doodle crap is this???

Now ISIS has WMDs????????
Holy crap.

Really stupid whack-a-doodle crap and anyone who buys it is an idiot. Straight up. Or maybe the mole people smuggled it back in through the underground tunnels from Syria.

But hey, the American public is stupid and will swallow this recycled BS again, right neocons? Look how well it worked last time. Now maybe if Saudi Arabia attacks on U.S. soil again we can invade Iraq again. Cheney rot in hell. I hope they gas you.

Un
Freaking
Real

originally posted by: hoochymama23
First Question: Wouldn't the Bush Admin and the News rejoiced in the fact that there were WMD 60 Miles from Bahgdad??

Second Question: If the above is true, why does this news come out now knowing the American Public would pick up on the Irony as soon as the news comes out?? (LOL)

Third Question: Another post mentioned that we put these here just to set up this situation. Why wouldn't we do this same thing during Bush's Admin??

This whole scenario seems like a set up. Meaning, Bush was willing to take the hit to set this up for Obama.

Thats my take on this.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
LOL.....nice. So we find them, make it known they are there, then leave and leave them there. Hmmm...does this wreak of a VERY planned operation in the works?

I don't know the protocol for destruction of materials such as what is claimed to be in there, but hard to believe that the armed forces of multiple nations just left and left these materials there for whomever to find.....retarded on the highest level unless it was left in order to execute a plan at a later date, such as allowing ISIS to start a massive war with them in order for the military machine to be called back in to boost the economy.

This! My thoughts exactly. So during the inception of the Iraq War, why didn't Bush and company open up this facility and say "Hey, see we did find WMDs". But nothing. I remember watching the news and supposedly we found these fermenting tanks on trailers and were empty and were "supposedly" used to cultivate biological weapons.
This whole situation reeks to high heaven about deliberately creating another sequel. Notice how all of this happened right after the last Bilderberg conference in Denmark?

a reply to: Kratos40

I agree.

Although I always thought that Saddam DID have WOMD, and the reason we knew was because we'd sold them to him and/or helped him develop them. Was always confused as to why we could then never find them ....

a reply to: AndyMayhew

From the early days of the Iraq War, supposedly the Iraqi Army and the Baathists shipped all WMD materials across the border into Syria. Is this what Assad used a few months ago against the rebels?

you mean is this the stuff the rebels used against assad?

as if there is a stock pile of chemical weapons in a facility searched by the folks who sold them to Iraq in the first place?
just there for the taking like all the other arms alciaduh in Iraq has recently scored


man what a false palm this is

a reply to: butcherguy

All according to a script apparently. Of course the official US position now... is that there is nothing of weapons value there for ISIS to use. But the Brit says otherwise. I think it 'reeks' as in the stink of the poo that they have been feeding us.

Says the very same people who declare pressure cookers WMD's and people get swat visits for less in this country.

Who really knows what the real deal is.

The current administration has been under estimating ISIS, and radical jihad from day 1.

a reply to: crazyewok

Or more likely Bush lied and people died and Obama now lying and more people will die.

Yes he HAD chemical weapons in 1982-1991. But Chemical weapons have a shelf life. Especially Sarin.

What way is it ?

Can't have it both ways.

Either he lied or he didn't.

Which is it?

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: crazyewok

Or more likely Bush lied and people died and Obama now lying and more people will die.

Yes he HAD chemical weapons in 1982-1991. But Chemical weapons have a shelf life. Especially Sarin.

What way is it ?

Can't have it both ways.

Either he lied or he didn't.

Which is it?

The lie was he had Chemical weapons that could be used in 2003. He didn't therefore he lied.

Notice 2003 is a bigger number than 1991. That cause 2003 came after 1991.

so yes Saddam had active chemical weapons in 1991 but in 2003 he didn't. There fore Bush saying he had active WMD in 2003 was a lie.

so yes he lied.

a reply to: Skyfloating

Rumsfeld sold Saddam WMDs in 1982. I

Really ?

For the life of me I do not understand why this get's repeat ad infinitum on here since it leaves quite a hell of a lot out.

Wikipedia's article on Iraq's WMDs gives a good rundown of the international contributions:

All told, 52% of Iraq's international chemical weapon equipment was of German origin.

Around 21% of Iraq’s international chemical weapon equipment was French.
About 100 tons of mustard gas also came from Brazil.
The United Kingdom paid for a chlorine factory that was intended to be used for manufacturing mustard gas
An Austrian company gave Iraq calutrons for enriching uranium. The nation also provided heat exchangers, tanks, condensers, and columns for the Iraqi chemical weapons infrastructure, 16% of the international sales.
Singapore gave 4,515 tons of precursors for VX, sarin, tabun, and mustard gasses to Iraq.
The Dutch gave 4,261 tons of precursors for sarin, tabun, mustard, and tear gasses to Iraq.
Egypt gave 2,400 tons of tabun and sarin precursors to Iraq and 28,500 tons of weapons designed for carrying chemical munitions.
India gave 2,343 tons of precursors to VX, tabun, Sarin, and mustard gasses.
Luxemburg gave Iraq 650 tons of mustard gas precursors.
Spain gave Iraq 57,500 munitions designed for carrying chemical weapons. In addition, they provided reactors, condensers, columns and tanks for Iraq’s chemical warfare program, 4.4% of the international sales.
China provided 45,000 munitions designed for chemical warfare.

jarrarsupariver.blogspot.com...

One country that is left out of that list is Russia well simply because the US doesn't make Scud launchers.

I wonder why only one country get's the blame.

a reply to: crazyewok

The lie was he had Chemical weapons that could be used in 2003. He didn't therefore he lied.

Still intentionally ignoring the Iraq war resolution I see.

Here lets look at it again.

The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:[2][3]

Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.

Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."

Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."

Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".

Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.

Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.

Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations. Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.

The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.

The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.

Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

en.wikipedia.org...

Where is the effing lie ?

originally posted by: neo96


Still intentionally ignoring the Iraq war resolution I see.

Here lets look at it again.

No.

don't know how to break it down into simple terms

But

Just because 90% of the resolution was true doesn't mean the 10% that wasn't was not a lie.

The war was sold to the public that there was active WMD and there wasn't.

originally posted by: neo96
Where is the effing lie ?

Right here.

originally posted by: neo96
Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."

a reply to: crazyewok

Just because 90% of the resolution was true doesn't mean the 10% that wasn't was not a lie.

Thanks were done here.

'just because 90% was TRUE.

No matter what 'Bush lied'.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: crazyewok

Just because 90% of the resolution was true doesn't mean the 10% that wasn't was not a lie.

Thanks were done here.

'just because 90% was TRUE.

No matter what 'Bush lied'.

Not really.

If bush tells 9 truth and 1 lie.......he still lied.

It's all planned ain't it after all? There's only one side in war after all, the money/power brigade, right?

Makes one think of this thread

Doom Porn - The Simpsons...

a reply to: crazyewok

Atta boy crazyewok, OF COURSE, Bush would lie and Saddam wouldn't. LMAO

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: crazyewok

Atta boy crazyewok, OF COURSE, Bush would lie and Saddam wouldn't. LMAO

Erm.

So please tell me

Were were the WMD our collation were meant to find?

Come on please link me to the big find that proved bush and Blair 100% right?

Were were these ACTIVE weapon stockpiles that could be launched in 45 minutes?

Chemical weapons weren't the issue.

The lie was admitted. The key phrase: "These sixteen words should never have been included."

Karl Rove and the White House Iraq Group deliberately added the term "mushroom cloud" to the talking points that were repeated ad nauseam by the Bush administration.

Americans were primarily sold the threat of nuclear terror not merely chemical weapons.