Iraqi WMD's Finally Found? In Syria?

[Si modo]

They are horrible, should we immediately invade Syria to prevent them from using them? Not so cut and dried is it?

What?

It's a simple question, if nerve gas alone and the stated willingness to use them is sufficient grounds to invade and occupy a country then we should immediately invade Syria. Do you agree? In light of this thread the answer should be an unambiguous Yes.

Willingness to use them on US and/or willingness to give them to those who will us them on US, absolutely. Is that the case with Syria?

 

[High_Gravity]

They are horrible, should we immediately invade Syria to prevent them from using them? Not so cut and dried is it?

What?

It's a simple question, if nerve gas alone and the stated willingness to use them is sufficient grounds to invade and occupy a country then we should immediately invade Syria. Do you agree? In light of this thread the answer should be an unambiguous Yes.

Why should we? Syria is in a civil war, let the rebels handle it.

 

[Ariux]

So dick licker, what was used in gassing the kurds?

Hey, Jew ass-******, the US-supplied gas Saddam may have used on the Kurds is irrelevant (at the time, Saddam wasn't under a mandate to not have WMDs). If you didn't have shit for brains, you'd know it's irrelevant and that you just make yourself look like someone who likes to please to Jews in hopes they'll bend over and let you pound their ass.

 

[High_Gravity]

So dick licker, what was used in gassing the kurds?

Hey, Jew ass-******, the US-supplied gas Saddam may have used on the Kurds is irrelevant (at the time, Saddam wasn't under a mandate to not have WMDs). If you didn't have shit for brains, you'd know it's irrelevant and that you just make yourself look like someone who likes to please to Jews in hopes they'll bend over and let you pound their ass.

Your fascination with homosexual sex is disturbing.

 

[occupied]

What?

It's a simple question, if nerve gas alone and the stated willingness to use them is sufficient grounds to invade and occupy a country then we should immediately invade Syria. Do you agree? In light of this thread the answer should be an unambiguous Yes.

Willingness to use them on US and/or willingness to give them to those who will us them on US, absolutely. Is that the case with Syria?

So we should carefully weigh the situation based on accurate information this time? We should look with derision upon the warhawks this time? What is different this time? We could not have learned our lesson about a rush to judgement, must be the need to keep our powder dry for a war on Iran should Romney win.

 

[The T]

So dick licker, what was used in gassing the kurds?

Hey, Jew ass-******, the US-supplied gas Saddam may have used on the Kurds is irrelevant (at the time, Saddam wasn't under a mandate to not have WMDs). If you didn't have shit for brains, you'd know it's irrelevant and that you just make yourself look like someone who likes to please to Jews in hopes they'll bend over and let you pound their ass.

yeah and he used it also to GAS the iranians...you remember that don't you? And you have PROOF that he got it from US?

Weren't GAS WEAPONS outlawed under the premise of cessation of hostilities after WW1, in which WE were a signatory?

Proof Gracie, proof.

 

[BlindBoo]

However, the number two general in Saddam Hussein’s air force says that these chemical weapons are the WMD’s that we did not find in Iraq.

In 2006, Georges Sada, second in command of the Iraqi Air Force under Hussein before he defected, wrote a detailed narrative called “Saddam’s Secrets.”

Hey, jewish ass-******, the WMDs are a lie. Anytime you try to make the case for Saddam having WMDs, you're a liar just proving that you want to please Jews enough that they'll bend over and let you pound their ass.

Georges Sada hasn't served Saddam since 1991, and his service ended with being imprisoned for his conduct. That means he's in no position to know anything of which you claim he claims. But, he's in a position where he would want to lie to punish Saddam.

So dick licker, what was used in gassing the kurds?

And what was the Raygun Administrations response?

Nothing.

 

[Si modo]

It's a simple question, if nerve gas alone and the stated willingness to use them is sufficient grounds to invade and occupy a country then we should immediately invade Syria. Do you agree? In light of this thread the answer should be an unambiguous Yes.

Willingness to use them on US and/or willingness to give them to those who will us them on US, absolutely. Is that the case with Syria?

So we should carefully weigh the situation based on accurate information this time? We should look with derision upon the warhawks this time? What is different this time? We could not have learned our lesson about a rush to judgement, must be the need to keep our powder dry for a war on Iran should Romney win.

Meh, I don't compare apples with lawnmowers.

 

[occupied]

Willingness to use them on US and/or willingness to give them to those who will us them on US, absolutely. Is that the case with Syria?

So we should carefully weigh the situation based on accurate information this time? We should look with derision upon the warhawks this time? What is different this time? We could not have learned our lesson about a rush to judgement, must be the need to keep our powder dry for a war on Iran should Romney win.

Meh, I don't compare apples with lawnmowers.

There is little difference between Iraq and Syria if the liberation from tyranny argument that eventually replaced the WMD argument is used.

 

[The T]

Hey, jewish ass-******, the WMDs are a lie. Anytime you try to make the case for Saddam having WMDs, you're a liar just proving that you want to please Jews enough that they'll bend over and let you pound their ass.

Georges Sada hasn't served Saddam since 1991, and his service ended with being imprisoned for his conduct. That means he's in no position to know anything of which you claim he claims. But, he's in a position where he would want to lie to punish Saddam.

So dick licker, what was used in gassing the kurds?

And what was the Raygun Administrations response?

Nothing.

Really Blind Boob?

Nothing? *I* beg to differ...good or bad...

National Archive STUDY

A little different than "Nothing".

IDIOT.

 

[Si modo]

So we should carefully weigh the situation based on accurate information this time? We should look with derision upon the warhawks this time? What is different this time? We could not have learned our lesson about a rush to judgement, must be the need to keep our powder dry for a war on Iran should Romney win.

Meh, I don't compare apples with lawnmowers.

There is little difference between Iraq and Syria if the liberation from tyranny argument that eventually replaced the WMD argument is used.

Who used any "liberation from tyranny" for Syria argument?

Ah, that was you.

 

[The T]

So we should carefully weigh the situation based on accurate information this time? We should look with derision upon the warhawks this time? What is different this time? We could not have learned our lesson about a rush to judgement, must be the need to keep our powder dry for a war on Iran should Romney win.

Meh, I don't compare apples with lawnmowers.

There is little difference between Iraq and Syria if the liberation from tyranny argument that eventually replaced the WMD argument is used.

'Replaced' WMD Gracie?

Replaced with what and by WHOM?

 

[BlindBoo]

So dick licker, what was used in gassing the kurds?

Hey, Jew ass-******, the US-supplied gas Saddam may have used on the Kurds is irrelevant (at the time, Saddam wasn't under a mandate to not have WMDs). If you didn't have shit for brains, you'd know it's irrelevant and that you just make yourself look like someone who likes to please to Jews in hopes they'll bend over and let you pound their ass.

yeah and he used it also to GAS the iranians...you remember that don't you? And you have PROOF that he got it from US?

Weren't GAS WEAPONS outlawed under the premise of cessation of hostilities after WW1, in which WE were a signatory?

Proof Gracie, proof.

The overriding reason Saddam was able to aquire such weapons was the Raygun Administration took them off the nations who support terrorist list. This enable Saddam to go shopping among our allies for western technology. Including duel use technology. All of this has come out. I believe it was a German firm who sold him the precursor chemicals. US firms sold him biological cultures as well.

 

[hortysir]

Really? Explain that logic, please.

If you were a dictator who knew that he could hide his WMD's and maybe escape some punishment that was coming, wouldn't you do that? Instead of using chemical weapons on American troops? Who is really going to use chemical weapons on American troops?

So ... your theory is that Saddam, knowing we were about to invade, smuggled all his WMDs to Syria without any country seeing it or stopping it ... but he chose NOT to smuggle himself, but rather, try to escape later, maybe, or not at all, and possibly try to avoid punishment, while hiding in a hole.

Wow dude. Are you a Hollywood script writer?

Photos point to removal of weapons - Washington Times


Any search I do for satellite images of tricks leaving for Syria come up blank.

I know I saw them

 

[Vast LWC]

Psst...

According to US and European intelligence, Syria has had their own chemical weapons program since the 1980's.

The Syrians have publicly hinted several times that they have their own chemical weapons, probably made from the same American-made raw materials that the Iraqi WMD were made of.

So, why would the fact that Syria has chemical weapons point to them being from Iraq?

Answer: it does not, except in the minds of right-wing sycophants that are still desperately trying to find proof that Hussein had illegal WMDs in 2003.

 

[The T]

Hey, Jew ass-******, the US-supplied gas Saddam may have used on the Kurds is irrelevant (at the time, Saddam wasn't under a mandate to not have WMDs). If you didn't have shit for brains, you'd know it's irrelevant and that you just make yourself look like someone who likes to please to Jews in hopes they'll bend over and let you pound their ass.

yeah and he used it also to GAS the iranians...you remember that don't you? And you have PROOF that he got it from US?

Weren't GAS WEAPONS outlawed under the premise of cessation of hostilities after WW1, in which WE were a signatory?

Proof Gracie, proof.

The overriding reason Saddam was able to aquire such weapons was the Raygun Administration took them off the nations who support terrorist list. This enable Saddam to go shopping among our allies for western technology. Including duel use technology. All of this has come out. I believe it was a German firm who sold him the precursor chemicals. US firms sold him biological cultures as well.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5673327-post130.html

And It's Reagan...

MORON.

 

[hortysir]

 

[occupied]

Meh, I don't compare apples with lawnmowers.

There is little difference between Iraq and Syria if the liberation from tyranny argument that eventually replaced the WMD argument is used.

Who used any "liberation from tyranny" for Syria argument?

Ah, that was you.

There is no difference between Syria and Iraq in terms of real threat to neighbors and the US, the only difference is that we do not have the republicans wanting to bomb them. The warhawks want Iran and are not interested in distractions in Syria. If Romney wins, remember this conversation when they start building the case for wiping out Iran, better yet, accept that the warhawks are quite willing to feed us bullshit to get their highly profitable wars of choice, it is quite possible that this conversation is entirely to build back their credibility for that time when they need us to be as scared as they want us to be.

 

[BlindBoo]

So dick licker, what was used in gassing the kurds?

And what was the Raygun Administrations response?

Nothing.

Really Blind Boob?

Nothing? *I* beg to differ...good or bad...

National Archive STUDY

A little different than "Nothing".

IDIOT.

Your link proves what I said. They took no action against Iraq and continue supporting Saddams regime.

Not once did the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations speak up on the official record about charges of Iraqi chemical weapons use, let alone condemn it, during discussions on the subject in the U.N. Security Council before 1988.

Further reading:

Meanwhile, in Congress it was not Halabja, but rather the final brutal phases of al-Anfal more than five months later, that prompted legislative action to impose additional sanctions on Iraq for use of chemical weapons. The Sanctions Against Iraqi Chemical Weapons Use Act (HR 5337) was in markup before the House Committee on Foreign Relations on September 22, 1988 when Peter Burleigh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, expressed the Department of State’s opposition:

We cannot support this legislation because we do not believe sanctions now would bring us closer to the objective we share with this committee of ending chemical weapons use by Iraq once and for all.

As the committee is aware, on September 17 the Foreign Minister of Iraq [Tariq Aziz] formally, quote, ‘Reaffirmed that Iraq respects and abides by all provisions of international law and international agreements accepted by the international community including the Geneva Protocol of 1925 and other agreements within the framework of international humanitarian law.’

In other words, the Reagan administration was now ready to take the word of the Iraqi government that it will abide by the very Geneva Protocol that it had flouted for eight long years. Moreover, the administration stood opposed to sanctions that would have been weaker than those already in place in 1980 at the start of the Iran-Iraq war.

How the forgotten city of Halabja became the launchpad for war on Iraq.. | take now or stay the same

 

[Si modo]

There is little difference between Iraq and Syria if the liberation from tyranny argument that eventually replaced the WMD argument is used.

Who used any "liberation from tyranny" for Syria argument?

Ah, that was you.

There is no difference between Syria and Iraq in terms of real threat to neighbors and the US, the only difference is that we do not have the republicans wanting to bomb them. The warhawks want Iran and are not interested in distractions in Syria. If Romney wins, remember this conversation when they start building the case for wiping out Iran, better yet, accept that the warhawks are quite willing to feed us bullshit to get their highly profitable wars of choice, it is quite possible that this conversation is entirely to build back their credibility for that time when they need us to be as scared as they want us to be.

Yeah, right...Syria is in exactly the same situation as Iraq was.