WMD found in Iraq after all, Bush was right: Pentagon 'hid' chemical weapons?

Bush wasn't the only one saying Saddam was a bad guy.




And Saddam had established being a real threat in the Iran/Iraq war and the first Gulf War (he invaded Kuwait):
en.wikipedia.org - Gulf War...

Also Saddam Hussein didn't like Israel:
news.bbc.co.uk - Saddam threatens Israel...

.........
On Tuesday he was seen on television banging his fist on the table in anger, criticising Arabs for not doing enough in response to Israeli killings in the Palestinian territories.

He said the great people of Iraq were ready to destroy Zionism right now and he called on Arabs to brandish their swords and make the sacrifices needed.

Iraq has also been calling for a holy war to liberate Jerusalem from Israeli control. President Saddam Hussein has said Iraq did not need to wait for sanctions to be lifted before striking Israel.
..........

And he didn't like the United States of America, when he stated:
en.wikipedia.org - Reactions to the September 11 attacks...

..."the American cowboys are reaping the fruit of their crimes against humanity".

originally posted by: jonnywhite
Bush wasn't the only one saying Saddam was a bad guy.

He was a bad guy .. there's no doubt there, he used chemical weapons on his own people.. and his sons were out of control

I'm glad he was removed from power, he needed to be removed.. but lying about WMD is not justification to do it..

Edit: simplified my post

a reply to: Xcathdra

If the items were inert then what caused the issues with the soldiers.

Probably the depleted uranium they were dropping on children!

originally posted by: miniatus

originally posted by: jonnywhite

Bush wasn't the only one saying Saddam was a bad guy.

He was a bad guy

.. there's no doubt there, he used chemical weapons on his own people.. and his sons were out of control



I'm glad he was removed from power, he needed to be removed.. but lying about WMD is not justification to do it..



Edit: simplified my post

He may have been a bad guy but i think we would be better off with him still there. Especially if we would not have supplied him with the weapons. The people that made those chemicals and the ones that agreed to send them over are still holding forms of power in the us. They are more responsible in my eyes. It would be like giving your children guns and then claiming you have to go to war with them because they are dangerous.

Oh, so now the "president didn't lie to the American people?" "Yeah," I hear ya. Sounds "likely."

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Xcathdra

If the items were inert then what caused the issues with the soldiers.

Probably the depleted uranium they were dropping on children!

Probably not since the Us is not the only nation that used them. Since Iraq was obtaining weapons from Russia / USSR its entirely possible it came from the Russian tank ammo.

Back to the topic.

Ok, I remember back when the first news that were showing that Sadam indeed had weapon of mass destruction, to be debunked by the realization that the so clall stock piles found were nothing more and nothing else than old from the 80s.

ISIS seizes chemical weapons depot near Baghdad, may have access to deadly sarin gas rockets

The Islamic terrorist group took over the facility, which dates back to Saddam Hussein's regime and could contain 2,500 degraded rockets filled with the gas, but U.S. officials say the materials are too old to be useful..

So as you can seen the news on this so call stock piles is not new.

The Islamic State of Syria and Iraq, better known as ISIS, captured the facility in Muthanna on June 11, according to a letter made public Tuesday at the United Nations.

The site, about 35 miles southwest of Baghdad, was once operated by Saddam’s army and is believed to contain 2,500 degraded rockets filled with potentially deadly sarin and mustard gas.

But U.S. officials have played down the seizure, saying the degraded chemical remnants date to the 1980s and were stored at the facility after being dismantled by UN inspectors.

www.nydailynews.com...

This is the worst attempt to convince people of another terrible lie but it must be true because its been printed right? I was there in 2003 hussain was loved by the people just as gaddafi was by his people another victim of demonisation by the us for their gain its pathetic what the sheep will believe,I supppose you all know hussain was eventually captured cowering in a subterranian den with a briefcase of us dollars what a load of bull# I witnessed the set up photo oppertunity get a grip,and the fact is if hussain was around today he would have smashed isis to bits by now

a reply to: Theproof

Once in a while news surface that Saddam indeed had weapons of mass destruction, these news are recycle news, but they are used during elections to see how many people believe them.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You would point the finger at Russia!
Doesn't that get boring?

& don't say it's not on topic when you're the one who asked for alternative theories...

I read a similar thread here on ATS a few days ago. So, I’ll reply to this thread the same as the other one.

I think the reason we didn't mention the chemical weapons as WMD's was that Hussein obtained these weapons from the US and a few of our allies prior to 1991. We had our own fingerprints all over them. Remember, before the Gulf War we were buddy/buddy with Saddam Hussein and supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War.

These stockpiles of chemical agents and delivery systems had been abandoned by Iraq long before we went to war with them in 2003. Consequently, they had degraded and decomposed to the point of being too dangerous to handle or be around. Therefore, a lot of folks were exposed to it and contaminated. Obviously, we didn't want this to become public knowledge, and so it was covered up as much as possible.

That’s my understanding of it, anyway. This is old news and does not change the fact that we were sold a bill of goods going to war with Iraq.

Frankly, IMO if we had kept our noses out of Iraq back in 2003 we would not be facing ISIL and the rest today. As bad as Hussein was, he hated Al Qaeda and would not allow them to establish operations in his country. He considered them a threat to his power structure and they feared him. I guess hindsight is 20/20, huh?

They just won't let this die, will they?

How many years did we crawl all over that country and NOW they're found? What's that say about...so much?

I call BS.

a reply to: netbound

i was basically going to say the same thing.

what bush claimed was that there was a active development, working,and maintained stock pile. not some abandoned shells found out in the desert.

they didn't say that they found these because that would have looked bad for the collation, and didn't want folks to know that people were exposed to the degrading weapons. as a matter of fact i bet they knew they were there from the first gulf war when they said that we never were attacked with them and they found and dumped themselves. and went back to find them so they could say look here what we found, but found out what shape they were in, that's why the soldiers were told not to say any thing

a reply to: Xcathdra

They were in desrepair, possibly not usable, and sold to Iraq by the US. I dont think that justifies invasion. They weremt producing or threatening. We all know it was an excuse and nothing about the mistake has changed

The first sentence from the op tells you its propaganda:

It's been 11 years since George W. Bush ordered an American invasion of Iraq after the 911 World Trade Center attacks.

Can't help but to put 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentence. They must continue to do this? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq held these wanna be terrorists groups at bay.

The invasion of Iraq has been the worst foreign policy decision ever, it sure made American politicians and corporation alot of money though!!!

All this has been known for a very long time. There were many bunkers off limits due to the chemical hazards within when I was over there throughout the 2000s. I really think the WMD is mostly related to nukes and though I feel they had a nuke program it wasn't to where even their own scientists were suggesting it was, but their chemical/bio programs were in full swing, and more importantly he already showed us he had no issues with using them anytime it was to his advantage.

originally posted by: marg6043
Ok, I remember back when the first news that were showing that Sadam indeed had weapon of mass destruction, to be debunked by the realization that the so clall stock piles found were nothing more and nothing else than old from the 80s.

Is that the 1880s? Hard to suggest that chemicals a little over a decade old were not still a true threat.... Hell our own nukes are from the 50s hehe.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Xcathdra

You would point the finger at Russia!
Doesn't that get boring?

& don't say it's not on topic when you're the one who asked for alternative theories...

No more boring than pointing the finger solely at the US.

I didn't ask for alternative theories... You should re-read my op.

a reply to: netbound

The flaw in that position is the fact it was public knowledge the US supplied those items to Iraq. So there would be no need to hide it.

As for what Iraq had left I would point out all of the UN resolutions said no wmds - period. They don't say no wmds except for this or that or this quantity.

a reply to: LDragonFire

I thought Iraq and 9/11 occurred during the same time period. They weren't linked and I was under the impression the administration stated as much.