The CIA Just Declassified the Document That Supposedly Justified the Iraq Invasion

a reply to: Chadwickus

Chemical weapons sold to him by the west and friends.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
As if many, many, many of us didn't already know it was a lie and an illogical argument. There were no WMD. No mass graves. Lies and vapor.

I think they should all be hung like Saddam was. Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Giuliani, Blair and all the other criminals who were complicit. In public. And that every family who lost someone on 9/11 and as a result of their war of lies should be paid reparations from the fortunes they made from both.

And the people who believed that any of that or the new lies being told today to make fortunes, who pretend to cower in fear and who instill fear are on notice too.

I would agree with you if you agree to expand your idea into an ideology. Hang everyone in government and start over. I'll sign on to that one.

a reply to: Agit8dChop

Iraq had no plans or ability to attack the USA with conventional or chem/bio weapons - the us lied and said they did

Fact: Iraq did have massive amounts of chemical weapons

International Moniters Recovery of...

Between Oct. and Dec. 2006 more then 2000 chemical bombs were recovered alone

Redacted Army Report
refer to page 5

Iraq's intentions with regard to the operational use of its biological and chemical weapons have been subject to conflicting presentations by Iraqi authorities. On the one side, it was explained that the biological and chemical weapons were seen by Iraq as a useful means to counter a numerically superior force; on the other, they were presented as a means of last resort for retaliation in the case of a nuclear attack on Baghdad. Certain documentation supports the contention that Iraq was actively planning and had actually deployed its chemical weapons in a pattern corresponding to strategic and offensive use through surprise attack against perceived enemies. The known pattern of deployment of long-range missiles (Al Hussein) supports this contention. Iraq stated to UNSCOM that authority to launch biological and chemical warheads was pre-delegated in the event that Baghdad was hit by nuclear weapons during the Gulf war. This pre-delegation does not exclude the alternative use of such a capability and therefore does not constitute proof of only intentions concerning second use.

UNSCOM

Percieved enemies, I wonder how Saddam felt about us already waging war in Afghanistan whilst staging along his borders in Kuwait and elsewhere.

The thing is, is that I do not think that Saddam was prepared to do something but he did have the weapons and his capabilities is unknown if you factor in guerrilla tactics, I am also not privy to the knowledge of pacts and treaties much less who Iraqs allies were prior to the invasion of Afghanistan and then ultimately Iraq. Things like the "Victory Over America" Palace and other anti west sentiments throughout the region lead me to believe that Saddam was not very friendly to the US. I do not justify war there but I will say that this whole mess is alot more then just throwing around cynical and ridiculous things like "war for oil" and it was about this or that. (not saying you said those things) I am saying that there is more here then meets the eye. The real criminals are still at large and the people of the world keep falling for the same tricks. The main point I am trying to make though is that Iraq did have chemical weapons, Iraq may have deployed them terror style (may have is speculation we may never know cause we shock and awed them first) and most importantly there is a lot more to this then putting down "facts" unless you are prepared to link them all together in a manner that is irrefutably obvious. (facts on there own do not describe the whole situation)

originally posted by: BrothermanThings like the "Victory Over America" Palace and other anti west sentiments throughout the region lead me to believe that Saddam was not very friendly to the US.

Saddam was relatively friendly to the US. We left him in power after the first war, and we used him for cheap oil and forced purchases of our countries goods. The public rhetoric was death to America but behind closed doors his enemies were largely the same as our enemies and we were keeping him in power. In politics that's about as friendly as you can get.

i have a friend that does special ops in the middle east and i asked him if there were any WMDs found in Iraq , and he said yes and i know he is not the kind of person to lie a reply to: Kapusta

originally posted by: jed001
i have a friend that does special ops in the middle east and i asked him if there were any WMDs found in Iraq , and he said yes and i know he is not the kind of person to lie a reply to: Kapusta

WMD is a broad term. There were some found in Iraq, Saddam had aging chemical weapons and those count as WMD's. We know he had these because we found them, oddly enough we sold them to him originally. What matters though is that he had little to no capability to produce his own, his weapons were old and losing effectiveness, he had no delivery system, and that he didn't have weapons of the caliber claimed. Yes he had some chemical weapons but he didn't have anything even 1/10 as deadly as what we claimed he had. We were claiming things like Saddam was preparing an imminent nuclear strike on an American city in cooperation with Al Qaeda when in reality he had chemical weapons that could kill maybe 2000 people in a strike, and no ability to shoot a missile more than 50 miles.

a reply to: Chadwickus

Thank you for bringing that up.

Are chemical or biological weapons not weapons of mass destruction?

I bet if Israel used them they would instantly be charged with using WMDs.

But it's not when saddam does it?!?!

The declassification is pointless, because the document is so heavily redacted.

a reply to: Swills


All I have heard from the left is them screaming "There were no WMDs!!!"


And we find out that there were all along-regardless of where he got them (I think that whoever-I know they were from the US-sold them to him should be charged with every death that the shipment caused) they actually WERE THERE.

Is the left going to continue to scream (nonsensically) that there were no WMDs?

a reply to: Aazadan

Saddam Hussein In His Own Words:

U.S.S. Cole Bombing, October 12, 2000
"[Iraqis] should intensify struggle and jihad in all fields and by all means..."
Iraq TV, October 22, 2000 (State-controlled)

The Attacks of September 11
"The United States reaps the thorns its rulers have planted in the world."
Saddam Hussein, September 12, 2001

"The real perpetrators [of September 11] are within the collapsed buildings."
Alif-Ba, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)

"[September 11 was] God's punishment."
Al-Iktisadi, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)

"If the attacks of September 11 cost the lives of 3,000 civilians, how much will the size of losses in 50 states within 100 cities if it were attacked in the same way in which New York and Washington were? What would happen if hundreds of planes attacked American cities?"
Al-Rafidayn, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)

"The simple truth [about September 11] is that America burned itself and now tries to burn the world."
Alif-Ba, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled magazine)

"[I]t is possible to turn to biological attack, where a small can, not bigger than the size of a hand, can be used to release viruses that affect everything..."
Babil, September 20, 2001 (State-controlled newspaper)

"The United States must get a taste of its own poison..."
Babil, October 8, 2001


Link


Yeah sounds really friendly too, where do I find evidence of his friendly back door parties with the west?

a reply to: Brotherman

Like I said, his public rhetoric was very anti American but that's what was expected in the region. If you want proof of him being friendly to us, look no further than the fact that we left him in power. Why do you think we did that? Do you not think that would have come with certain conditions, just like with every other dictator we've ever propped up?

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

What was used on the Kurdish people then?

Fairly dust?

No, chemical weapons were used which also were supplied by the US and US companies back in the 80's when the US fully supported Iraq during the Iraqi- Iran war.

This whole argument that, "he used weapons on his own people" is such a flawed argument. If it was such an outrage, why did we wait 20 years to do anything about it?

a reply to: Aazadan

So maybe he violated them "conditions" by restarting his chemical weapons program and got ousted.

a reply to: MrWendal

No, chemical weapons were used which also were supplied by the US and US companies back in the 80's when the US fully supported Iraq during the Iraqi- Iran war

He had the capability to create his own chemical weapons by 2000 and probably earlier as well those supplied in the 80s would have been inert by 2003.

originally posted by: Brotherman
a reply to: Aazadan

So maybe he violated them "conditions" by restarting his chemical weapons program and got ousted.

All evidence we had at the time, and all evidence we've turned up since is that Saddam had very little capability to produce new weapons and he had nothing for delivery systems. What he did have is a history of using weapons in the past, and a lot of rhetoric claiming he had the ability to do so again. That rhetoric is what the US used as a pretext for war, however when push came to shove Saddam eventually admitted he had nothing and that lined up with what our intelligence said as well as eyes on the ground.

None of that mattered though, Bush wanted to goto war and the goal wasn't to find out if Saddam was doing something that would require our attention but rather how to make a case that he was. It was a lot like an employer who can't fire an employee for being black, but still wants the person gone. A reason gets invented.

Remember the inspectors who said Saddam had nothing? They were kidnapped and killed by the US and UK intelligence services. Just look at the case of David Kelly.

a reply to: Aazadan

I've linked sufficient reports above take them or leave them, I don't feel a need to argue about it.

originally posted by: Brotherman
a reply to: MrWendal

No, chemical weapons were used which also were supplied by the US and US companies back in the 80's when the US fully supported Iraq during the Iraqi- Iran war

He had the capability to create his own chemical weapons by 2000 and probably earlier as well those supplied in the 80s would have been inert by 2003.

Any country with any sort or credible industry could create chemical weapons.

The "ability to create chemical weapons" could be used as a excuse to take out any country that is not kept Pre Industrial.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Any country with any sort or credible industry could create chemical weapons.

The "ability to create chemical weapons" could be used as a excuse to take out any country that is not kept Pre Industrial.

This is why delivery systems are so important. Weapons really aren't that difficult to make, what's hard to create are the long range delivery systems to strike beyond your borders. As it currently stands almost every nation on earth has the ability to create chemical weapons, atleast a few such weapons in stockpiles, and the ability to deploy those weapons anywhere in their territory.

a reply to: FalcoFan

The only WMD's were the ones we sold him, including folks in the Bush administration, and other foreign friends, like the UK and Saudi Arabia. Israeli's Netanyhaooooo testified that Saddam was no doubt working on a nuclear weapon. But in the end, we discover aging chemical weapons we sold him. That's what we went to war for, I guess. It's no way a justification for said war, the lives it cost and the monster it created, ISIS.

The American public, and world at large, was sold a BS story from the Bush administration & friends so they can pursue their own personal agenda. I was in the USN at the time supervising special operations in the Middle East. We were fresh off the 9/11 emotional roller coaster and in full swing hunting terrorists. When it was decided we would go to war with Iraq everyone was like, huh? But orders are orders, and you can't defy them.

If I could do it all over again knowing what I know now I would have never joined the military.

originally posted by: Brotherman
a reply to: Aazadan

I've linked sufficient reports above take them or leave them, I don't feel a need to argue about it.

You're missing the point though. Even if you discount what the inspectors said, and classify what he did have as cutting edge WMD's it's not relevant because he still had no plans to launch them against the US and he had no delivery systems to do so. What he did have is the same as what any nation has, and by all indications he had even less than that.

The US claimed an imminent nuclear or biological attack from Iraq and pushed for war. On the deadline we gave Iraq (which they gave in to) we even attacked two hours early (after ignoring their capitulation) just because we didn't want to wait.

Iraq had no capability to attack us, no plans to attack us, and was not assisting anyone else with attacking us. Those are the facts that matter.