MI6 and CIA were told before invasion that Iraq had no active WMD

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Kram09

 

That video had nothing to do with politics the reasoning behind the war is right there in black and white.

Yes it did and no it isn't.

Please explain the reasoning to us then?

It was just a bunch of democrats making quotations about Iraq and WMDs which we've obviously heard all that kind of thing before.

Lie to the Government it's a felony. Government lie to the people it's called politics.

The only reason they went into Iraq was to finish the job George Senior started, but didn't have the mandate to finish. George Junior didn't have a mandate either, but oh well, the U.S had been attacked and someone had to pay!!

Lap dog Blair got dragged into the Hawks nest and couldn't get out. Afterall, you were either with the U.S or against them, and Blair didn't want the U.K to be an enemy of the States.

Blair's legacy is the war in Iraq and the lies after lies that were spun to drag us into Bush's war games. He is a war criminal, but I don't think we will be seeing him in the Hague any time soon.

reply to post by Kram09


Sorry not going to "explain" a video that speaks for itself those people saw a "threat" and they acted.

They were not going to take a chance

reply to post by Corruption Exposed

were told through secret channels by Saddam Hussein's foreign minister and his head of intelligence that Iraq had no active weapons of mass destruction.

Did anyone catch that they were told BY HUSSEIN'S FOREIGN MINISTER...remember this guy? C'mon.. Besides, we know he had WMDs, because we SOLD them to him....

Also, we gave him about 2 months to play the shell game and send them to Syria and Jordan. So, bottom line, yes, he had WMDs...because WE sold them to him. NO, we didn't find any, because he had ample time to move them, and NO, we didn't invade because of WMDs, we went in after continuous violations of agreements he made with the UN Security Council, after previously invading his neighbor, dipping folks in acid baths...etc. Or did we all forget these things?

reply to post by Corruption Exposed
[m

Maybe Tony B. actually meant to say IRAN had those things but in Reality , his Handlers told him no, Iraq has the WMD's . Being a Pissant , of course Tony said " I Stand Corrected" ............

No surprise for me here. At all.

The US and the UK span a complete pack of lies, and started a war over it.

Forget "they hid them" or "they moved them" - simply put they weren't there.

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by Corruption Exposed

 

were told through secret channels by Saddam Hussein's foreign minister and his head of intelligence that Iraq had no active weapons of mass destruction.

Did anyone catch that they were told BY HUSSEIN'S FOREIGN MINISTER...remember this guy? C'mon.. Besides, we know he had WMDs, because we SOLD them to him....

Also, we gave him about 2 months to play the shell game and send them to Syria and Jordan. So, bottom line, yes, he had WMDs...because WE sold them to him. NO, we didn't find any, because he had ample time to move them, and NO, we didn't invade because of WMDs, we went in after continuous violations of agreements he made with the UN Security Council, after previously invading his neighbor, dipping folks in acid baths...etc. Or did we all forget these things?

Here kid... have a magnifying glass.....
WTF kid.... don't torture those ants! *slap*

Is that American mentality? Sick....

Stop pestering the world with your weapons.

If you think it through, America is entirely to blame for EVERY single bad episode in the middle east. Too bad the American people are too busy being proud rather than being reasonable.

reply to post by neformore


They weren't there?

Given the track record of Iraq and the funds, and the desire to build them and sell them I am confused as to how this speech got turn in to "we went to Iraq to take Saddams wmds".

The war was more than doing just that it put a lot of people not in Iraq on notice

reply to post by neo96

Sorry not going to "explain" a video that speaks for itself those people saw a "threat" and they acted. They were not going to take a chance

Why should I bother to watch the video in the first place if you're not going to properly describe to us what the video entails? In fact why should I bother to take anything you say seriously? The video doesn't speak for itself contrary to what you might think.

Who are "those people"? You mean the U.S. government? Do you mean Democrats or do you just mean Republicans? Your video was full of democrats.

What threat exactly Neo? As has been corroborated now many times over and has been mentioned in this thread numerous times, there was no threat.

reply to post by neo96

I am confused as to how this speech got turn in to "we went to Iraq to take Saddams wmds".

That's not what you've been saying for the past several pages. In fact you've repeatedly said that the United States had to invade to be sure of any Iraqi WMDs.

But now that we've rubbished that notion you've strangely contradicted yourself and started touting other reasons for the invasion.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by neformore

 

They weren't there?

Given the track record of Iraq and the funds, and the desire to build them and sell them I am confused as to how this speech got turn in to "we went to Iraq to take Saddams wmds".

The war was more than doing just that it put a lot of people not in Iraq on notice

At 2.08 Bush The Murderer even says that Iraq has been plotting WMDs.... and hold it... nuclear weapons? I mean what? Where did that intel come from? We know for a fact that they found no WMDs, because those were already destroyed in the early days, but nuclear weapons??? Come on... what a load of crock.

CIA already had gotten a confirmation that the WMD projects were shut down long before the invasion because of funding problems.

reply to post by neo96


Why are you posting that video?

You realise Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?

It seems you're just scraping around for other reasons to justify the Iraq invasion now.

Unless you're meaning something else?

reply to post by Kram09

That's not what you've been saying for the past several pages. In fact you've repeatedly said that the United States had to invade to be sure of any Iraqi WMDs.

That isn't true I said the only way anyone knows anything about Iraqs wmds is because the Us invaded something they would not have known otherwise.

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by Corruption Exposed

 

were told through secret channels by Saddam Hussein's foreign minister and his head of intelligence that Iraq had no active weapons of mass destruction.

Did anyone catch that they were told BY HUSSEIN'S FOREIGN MINISTER...remember this guy? C'mon.. Besides, we know he had WMDs, because we SOLD them to him....

Also, we gave him about 2 months to play the shell game and send them to Syria and Jordan. So, bottom line, yes, he had WMDs...because WE sold them to him. NO, we didn't find any, because he had ample time to move them, and NO, we didn't invade because of WMDs, we went in after continuous violations of agreements he made with the UN Security Council, after previously invading his neighbor, dipping folks in acid baths...etc. Or did we all forget these things?

he had WMDs

Correct

because WE sold them to him

Absolutely Correct

NO, we didn't find any

Again, Correct.

because he had ample time to move them,and NO, we didn't invade because of WMDs, we went in after continuous violations of agreements he made with the UN Security Council, after previously invading his neighbor, dipping folks in acid bath

Incorrect. According to Scott Ritter he said:

I don’t view it as going out on a limb. Having investigated Saddam’s WMD programs from 1991 to 1998, I was simply pointing out the fact that if you’re relying on a data set that’s derived from that experience, there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein would have these massive stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction that the Bush Administration claimed were being possessed.

Unless someone could demonstrate that the Iraqis had reconstituted their manufacturing base for WMD, simple science takes over. You don’t have to be brave to point out that anthrax as produced by the Iraqis has a shelf life under ideal circumstances of three years. The last known batch rolled out in January 1991. One cannot state that any anthrax that may have been hidden at that time is still viable in 2002 unless there was a new anthrax facility put in play. And the Bush Administration never said that. What the Bush Administration said was that 9/11 has caused us to reevaluate the intelligence data that existed up until 1998. That’s why I knew I had them because I was intimately familiar here with the intelligence information up to 1998, and there was nothing in that data set that would support what the Bush Administration was asserting. So I wasn’t going out on a limb. I was simply stating a fact. In other words it was removed and destroyed by

Well, it's a lot more complicated than that. The corruption of the UNSCOM inspection process by the CIA was two-fold. Let's talk about the exterior corruption.

The disarmament process itself was used by the CIA not to disarm Iraq, but to contain Saddam Hussein by providing a façade of legitimacy for the continuation of economic sanctions. From the very beginning, the CIA's approach to the weapons inspectors was not one of let's assist the inspectors in carrying out their mandated task to disarm Iraq, but rather, how can we use the inspection process to facilitate the unilateral policy of regime change in Iraq. That policy was ordered by the Executive Branch of the United States Government, starting with George Herbert Walker Bush in 1991 and going through the Clinton Administration, and then of course on to the current Administration of George W. Bush.

From an inspector's standpoint, we were fully aware of the American policy of regime change – this was a stated policy. The problem is that the United States is a senior member of the Security Council. It has a veto capability. We as inspectors work for the Security Council. We had a problem in Iraq that the Iraqis were not telling us the truth early on. We needed to gain access to information.

See video for more proof:

Or did we all forget these things?

Have you forgotten those things?

reply to post by Kram09


Because he's reacting to the wag the dog syndrome that most patriots do.... it's not hard for politicians with the magnitude of evil that resides in the line of presidents since Kennedy to make people believe the extensive lies to vomit out during every single speech.

One could just wish that the public got a little more adept and clever at deciphering the bull# and pay no attention it.

reply to post by flice

CIA already had gotten a confirmation that the WMD projects were shut down long before the invasion because of funding problems

So?

As a standard rule the CIa is never credible on anything else, but it is for Iraq'a WMDS of course there are other intelligence agencies around the world who said they were a "threat".

Originally posted by Kram09
reply to post by neo96

 

Why are you posting that video?

You realise Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?

It seems you're just scraping around for other reasons to justify the Iraq invasion now.

Unless you're meaning something else?

Yeah "sponsors" of terrorists who "hate" Amerika and have the ability to manufacture wmds has nothing to do with "terrorism".

Iraq who was mentioned in that speech, as was Iran as with North Korea

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Kram09

 

That's not what you've been saying for the past several pages. In fact you've repeatedly said that the United States had to invade to be sure of any Iraqi WMDs.

That isn't true I said the only way anyone knows anything about Iraqs wmds is because the Us invaded something they would not have known otherwise.

Well that's a factual error as well isn't it.... it kind of nullifies the idea of doing intelligence in the first if you have to invade everytime... just to make sure.

THE FACT IS.... BUSH AND HIS ACCOMPLICES knew just well that there were no WMDs, because the intel concluded that, end of story.
But that wasn't quite what they needed... so they lied, and when the time came again to conclude more on the WMD issue after the invasion... lie again. You bought into the first lie, why not the second one.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by flice

 

CIA already had gotten a confirmation that the WMD projects were shut down long before the invasion because of funding problems

So?

As a standard rule the CIa is never credible on anything else, but it is for Iraq'a WMDS of course there are other intelligence agencies around the world who said they were a "threat".

edit on 18-3-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

Agencies who had a significant interest in US presence in the middle east.... selfish deeds, nothing more than that. Their intel was bunk...

Here... choose...
offer A: Intel says "no threat" and you don't go to war.....

offer B: intel says "threat immenent" and oh, I enclosed this check for you with a substantial amount... you can have some land and rebuilding contracts as well if you want

reply to post by flice

Well that's a factual error as well isn't it.... it kind of nullifies the idea of doing intelligence in the first if you have to invade everytime... just to make sure.

No intelligence only goes so far and invade every time?

Looks like to me they are 1 for 1 without either actions they would not know what they know now.

THE FACT IS.... BUSH AND HIS ACCOMPLICES knew just well that there were no WMDs, because the intel concluded that, end of story.

Opinion

But that wasn't quite what they needed... so they lied, and when the time came again to conclude more on the WMD issue after the invasion... lie again. You bought into the first lie, why not the second one.

Easy to call them liars when we are sitting on the outside looking in totally different story when one is the elected leader of this country.

Which is why we elect leaders so we don't have to take responsibilty for anything, and just make them scapegoats when they do things we don't like.