James Corbett totally destroys the LIE that Soleimani was responsible for 600 American deaths

originally posted by: pexx421
You’re not getting it. It was clearly sold as nuclear weapons. I remember all the news then. Do you? No one even ONCE mentioned chemical weapons in the lead up to the attack. Y’all are really buying into the rewritten history.

Demonstrably false.

VP Cheney talks chemical, biological and nuclear weapons


President Bush talks about chemical, biological, and nuclear concerns


Note in both of these speeches, they talk about Iraq having biological and chemical weapons, not nuclear. The only time nuclear is mentioned is in parts where they're talking about capability Saddam was pursuing and that they wouldn't let him acquire.

This was repeated in the media:
CNN, September 4, 2002 Again, establishes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons and is pursuing a nuclear capability.

NY Times, September 8, 2002 Same thing, warns about Iraq pursuing a nuclear program, but clearly states that he has biological and chemical weapons.

PBS Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction also covers chemical, biological and nuclear, making clear that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons at the time.

Now, of course Iraq potentially getting a nuclear capability was a concern. It's established fact that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. This was largely inoperable by the time we invaded in 2003 thanks to Israeli air strikes in 1981, some Iranian action, and the actions of the Bush and Clinton administrations in the 90s in conjunction with the UN. However, interviews with top Saddam officials revealed that he had every intention of resuming the program once UN sanctions were lifted. It's worth noting that this was likely Iran's strategy with the pitiful "deal" Obama signed. Get the sanctions lifted, complete the program, and pursue the weapons afterwards.

Please don't spread this false info about the Iraq War. It was almost 20 years ago, it's about time people accept what really happened rather than the media narrative. It's funny you mention revisionist history, which is exactly what you just tried to spread, knowingly or unknowingly I don't know. But now you know the truth. Don't spread lies.

originally posted by: Village Idiot
"originally posted by: HalWesten
If it were up to me you (Willtell) would be banned for life for posting that trash."

That's right, anyone here that points out Trumps Lies, deceit and criminal behavior, should be banned for life.

Except that was actually pure, BS trash.

You know, there is a big difference between when Trump lies and when the MSM/dems/leftists lie about him...

When Trump lies, it is about silly things, like crowd sizes and the like - meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

When the MSM/dems/leftists lie about Trump, it is in the most vile, hateful, despicable way imaginable, calling him a Traitor, calling for his death, etc etc ad nauseum.

See the difference?

originally posted by: Willtell
Bush and Cheney didn't lie us into a war. Even Trump knows that.

Yes, they did - and I think Trump knows it too.

Cheney was a piece of human waste, just like Clinton.

That said... the video doesn't bear out the OP.

So it was Hezbollah instead of Iran? Who backs Hezbollah? Iran.

No, while I absolutely agree we should never trust, blindly or otherwise, the MIC, this in no way 'proves' the claim a lie.

But, I'll allow that it may be a lie... so, does it change the nature of Iran as a vicious, backwards country ruled by religious zealots who engage in terrorist acts whenever and wherever possible, including backing other terrorist groups - like Hezbollah?

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: pexx421
You’re not getting it. It was clearly sold as nuclear weapons. I remember all the news then. Do you? No one even ONCE mentioned chemical weapons in the lead up to the attack. Y’all are really buying into the rewritten history.

Demonstrably false.

VP Cheney talks chemical, biological and nuclear weapons

President Bush talks about chemical, biological, and nuclear concerns

Note in both of these speeches, they talk about Iraq having biological and chemical weapons, not nuclear. The only time nuclear is mentioned is in parts where they're talking about capability Saddam was pursuing and that they wouldn't let him acquire.

This was repeated in the media:
CNN, September 4, 2002 Again, establishes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons and is pursuing a nuclear capability.

NY Times, September 8, 2002 Same thing, warns about Iraq pursuing a nuclear program, but clearly states that he has biological and chemical weapons.

PBS Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction also covers chemical, biological and nuclear, making clear that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons at the time.

Now, of course Iraq potentially getting a nuclear capability was a concern. It's established fact that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. This was largely inoperable by the time we invaded in 2003 thanks to Israeli air strikes in 1981, some Iranian action, and the actions of the Bush and Clinton administrations in the 90s in conjunction with the UN. However, interviews with top Saddam officials revealed that he had every intention of resuming the program once UN sanctions were lifted. It's worth noting that this was likely Iran's strategy with the pitiful "deal" Obama signed. Get the sanctions lifted, complete the program, and pursue the weapons afterwards.

Please don't spread this false info about the Iraq War. It was almost 20 years ago, it's about time people accept what really happened rather than the media narrative. It's funny you mention revisionist history, which is exactly what you just tried to spread, knowingly or unknowingly I don't know. But now you know the truth. Don't spread lies.

“Don’t let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud” must have been repeated thousands of times. That’s what we were sold on. We gave him those chemical weapons. How is him having chemical weapons we gave him causus belli? It’s not. They were following the PNAC. It was very clear and deliberate, and they made up whatever excuses they wanted. Just like with Libya, Syria, Venezuela, etc. And it’s clear why they use psyops on the American people, it apparently works well, as evidenced by you. We have and had no reasonable reasons to go to Iraq, to go to Libya, to attack Iran, to destroy Venezuela’s economy. It’s all geopolitics of control, power, and profit. We killed 2.4 million people in Iraq. Think those were mostly militants? Think they preferred that over saddam? Think they were grateful for the 500k estimated children dead due to our sanctions prior to the war? Only fools and easily influenced, weak minded people were afraid of Iraq attacking conus with nukes OR chemicals. They wanted a war with Iraq. They wanted it for over a decade. 9/11 gave them an excuse.

a reply to: pexx421

That's a hilarious response to being proven unequivocally wrong. Not shocking though. In another thread you're arguing that math isn't math.

a reply to: pexx421

At the end of the day we removed Hussein from office and fundamentally changed Iraq without any real consequences against this country... we also just removed an Iranian asshat from the world of the living and may well have sparked the kindling under the fires intending to remove the Ayatollahs from power in Iran and return the country to the Iranian people again without any real negative consequences to the United States. Why does this matter? Simple, it demonstrates that you can cry and whine about it all you want, nothing is changing and your opinions on the topic are meaningless beyond virtue signalling.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I wouldn't bother with him. At this point I'm convinced he's trolling. Look at his responses in the last two pages of this thread. He's just here to post propaganda, no matter how silly it is. He can't do basic math.

a reply to: face23785

Says the person claiming 2 people making a combined $20 hr is middle class.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: pexx421

At the end of the day we removed Hussein from office and fundamentally changed Iraq without any real consequences against this country... we also just removed an Iranian asshat from the world of the living and may well have sparked the kindling under the fires intending to remove the Ayatollahs from power in Iran and return the country to the Iranian people again without any real negative consequences to the United States. Why does this matter? Simple, it demonstrates that you can cry and whine about it all you want, nothing is changing and your opinions on the topic are meaningless beyond virtue signalling.

Except there has been great cost. There’s trillions of dollars, putting another nail in the coffin of us empire. Strange we can’t find money when it’s to benefit the people that pay those taxes, but we can always find money for wars. I believe it’s about 5 trillion in our wars vs Iraq and Afghanistan, plus 5 for trumps tax cuts. Is that half the national debt? I think it’s close. Then there’s the human costs. Our soldiers were over there killing women and children. I have plenty friends who can’t sleep at night, struggle with addiction and depression, because of the horrible things they did. This is across the board as the majority of homeless are vets who couldn’t get over what they experienced or did. How much do you think they cost? What have we bought for this? Is the region better? Safer? We unleashed isis (with funding and support), destroying millions more lives. Created a massive exodus of migrants which have upset the balances all across Europe. No cost? Sure. If you have tunnel vision and choose to support lies that fit your narrative. But enough of your snide remarks and ad hominems. Learn to debate reasonably, or piss off.

a reply to: Willtell

Thanks for sharing, Will. I tend to enjoy his work, but this was suboptimal in my book. Let me explain.

A strike on major officials is an act of war, and he didn't mention this once. It's not about non-state actors this time, which is a crucial fact he simply overlooked. Not to mention the fact, that his fact-checking of the numbers from the White House leaves the whole strategy of drone murder untouched. A single additional comment would've been enough, and we may actually find that in one of his other pieces. I'm not saying he does support the whole strategy here, I'm just saying he leaves this impression due to his focus on the numbers, and the numbers only.

He may have a lot on his plate, but... WTF? And his whole WW3 fearmongering at the end is essentially the same type of fearmongering that brought us into this mess in the first place. Dude! Really? You shouldn't shy away from a war with Iran out of fear, you should do so because ending this forever war is the right thing to do. Right? Isn't that kind of education exactly what his channel is about?

James, in case you read this: take it as constructive criticism, and keep up the good work!





a reply to: face23785

Please don't spread this false info about the Iraq War.

You should take a long look into the mirror with the nuclear weapon capability hypothesis your own sources debunked already.

Despite the fact that the facilities and nuclear material had been destroyed or removed, as early as 1996 the IAEA concluded that "the know-how and expertise acquired by Iraqi scientists and engineers could provide an adequate base for reconstituting a nuclear-weapons-oriented program."

Nuclear physicist and Iraqi defector Khidhir Hamza agrees. He told FRONTLINE that Iraq did not relinquish certain critical components of the nuclear program to the inspectors, and that it retains the expertise necessary to build a nuclear weapon. He believes that Iraq may have one completed within the next couple of years.

saddam hussein's weapons of mass destruction

Expertise and ambitions are one thing, actual nuclear capability another. A lie is a lie, deal with it.