Remember folks when you read this ...THERE WERE NEVER NEVER any WMDs!!!

[NYcarbineer]

4,000+ young American lives, tens of thousands of lost limbs and minds, thousands of destroyed families over one trillion dollars that we didn't have, and an even more destabilized Middle East.

For that?

No thanks.

1.2 million children ALIVE today because they weren't starved by Saddam's refusal to admit he DIDN"T have WMDs!
And now we know he DID!
Or how about these Iraqi's
"So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it"
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put the question to Barham Salih, the former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan's regional government and a former deputy prime minister of Iraq's federal government.
"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ... Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves. Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq. And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein -- the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."
So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it; and the fault for all that has gone wrong is ultimately with Iraqis themselves: It's a remarkable point of view to encounter in June 2013.
10 Years After the Fall of Saddam How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War - The Atlantic

You do realize that sending Americans to die by the thousands so some people in some other country can 'feel better' is not a just cause...

...a just cause for American military action is when there is a dire threat to our vital interests.

We had no vital interests in Iraq, therefore the invasion cannot be justified.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It is funny to me how the liberals cannot go to the "Faux News" cliche. Since this is being reported by the NY Times.

Talk about a liberal conundrum.

It's your conundrum having to claim the NY Times is a reliable news source after decades of conservatives telling us it isn't.

 

[Kondor3]

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

Chemical weapons were always included under the umbrella of WMDs. Also, it has been proven that saddam deliberately put out information that he was trying to establish nuclear capability.

His two son in laws revealed a long time ago that saddam was trying to get nuclear weapons. They were executed.

Nolo contendere.

Finding chemical weapons there was no surprise.

Finding nuclear weapons (or precursor components) would have validated the 2003 casus belli for invading Iraq.

Unfortunately, that never happened.

 

[zeke]

Is this all you've got? Really? What a fucking lame ass thread.

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

Chemical weapons were always included under the umbrella of WMDs. Also, it has been proven that saddam deliberately put out information that he was trying to establish nuclear capability.

His two son in laws revealed a long time ago that saddam was trying to get nuclear weapons. They were executed.

 

[Moonglow]

Why did it need to be secretly reported?

 

[Theowl32]

4,000+ young American lives, tens of thousands of lost limbs and minds, thousands of destroyed families over one trillion dollars that we didn't have, and an even more destabilized Middle East.

For that?

No thanks.

1.2 million children ALIVE today because they weren't starved by Saddam's refusal to admit he DIDN"T have WMDs!
And now we know he DID!
Or how about these Iraqi's
"So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it"
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put the question to Barham Salih, the former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan's regional government and a former deputy prime minister of Iraq's federal government.
"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ... Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves. Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq. And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein -- the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."
So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it; and the fault for all that has gone wrong is ultimately with Iraqis themselves: It's a remarkable point of view to encounter in June 2013.
10 Years After the Fall of Saddam How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War - The Atlantic

And to you, this is worth the price we have paid, described in my post?

.

What you, me or any of us do not know is what could have happened if saddam had given any of those things to the wrong people.

Again, the paradigm had changed post 911 on how to deal with perceived threats. Considering what we saw 19 men did with out a gun.

One ounce of weaponized anthrax could kill millions of Americans.

So, there was a reason why this threat had to be dealt with and it was mainly due to the change in how were to deal with these threats.

We can see this WAR ON TERROR was not going to be about ONLY taking down bin laden or ONLY al qaeda.

It is a lot more extensive than that.

 

[Theowl32]

It is funny to me how the liberals cannot go to the "Faux News" cliche. Since this is being reported by the NY Times.

Talk about a liberal conundrum.

It's your conundrum having to claim the NY Times is a reliable news source after decades of conservatives telling us it isn't.

Oh the Irony, and hypocrisy.

 

[toxicmedia]

The Secret Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons

From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.

In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

1. MAY 2004 Two soldiers exposed to sarin from a shell near Baghdad’s Yarmouk neighborhood.
2. SUMMER 2006 Over 2,400 nerve-agent rockets found at this former Republican Guard compound.
3. JULY 2008 Six Marines exposed to mustard agent from an artillery shell at an abandoned bunker.
4. AUGUST 2008 Five American soldiers exposed to mustard agent while destroying a weapons cache.
5. 2010 OR EARLY 2011 Hundreds of mustard rounds discovered in a container at this Iraqi security compound.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0

The justifications Colin Powell gave for the invasion of Iraq also included Iraq seeking nuclear weapons capabilities. We knew he had gas for years before.

I don't think the war would have been sold to congress so easily without that component. It probably would have anyway, but it probably would have gotten fewer votes from the Democrats.

On the electioneering aspects...the way the right interprets these facts are simply put out to serve the current GOP narrative.

Which includes:

You should have voted for Romney
Bush was right about Iraq
Obama shouldn't have withdrawn the troops

 

[mudwhistle]

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

Chemical weapons were always included under the umbrella of WMDs. Also, it has been proven that saddam deliberately put out information that he was trying to establish nuclear capability.

His two son in laws revealed a long time ago that saddam was trying to get nuclear weapons. They were executed.

Nolo contendere.

Finding chemical weapons there was no surprise.

Finding nuclear weapons (or precursor components) would have validated the 2003 casus belli for invading Iraq.

Unfortunately, that never happened.

Moving the goal posts, are we???

Thousands of tons of yellow-cake uranium wasn't a precursor component?

Word had it, Saddam was waiting for the United Nations to finish the inspection and give him a clean bill of health so he could start his nuke program and begin reconstituting his Sarin program. It wouldn't take long to gather what he needed to get everything up and running again, and the nuke program would be sheltered under the umbrella of the United Nations. Anyone who dared question it would suffer the wrath of the left and the UN Security Council.

 

[rightwinger]

Not exactly a mushroom cloud is it? We knew about Saddam's aging and mostly un-usable stockpile of chemicals, no one in the world could have made the case to invade over that alone. Bushco said he had a functional nuclear program and weaponized biologicals along with the missiles to deliver it to Europe. That's the lie that justified our invasion.

More importantly

Saddam had the opportunity to use these aged weapons TWICE in Dessert Storm and Iraqi Freedom and declined to do so. He knew what the repercussions would be if he crossed that line. Saddam was contained and not a threat outside his borders

Bush attacked anyway

A bigger impact has been a destabilization of the whole region. Bush claimed we would be treated as liberators and would be out quickly. He never said anything about needing to be there for decades

 

[Theowl32]

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

Chemical weapons were always included under the umbrella of WMDs. Also, it has been proven that saddam deliberately put out information that he was trying to establish nuclear capability.

His two son in laws revealed a long time ago that saddam was trying to get nuclear weapons. They were executed.

Nolo contendere.

Finding chemical weapons there was no surprise.

Finding nuclear weapons (or precursor components) would have validated the 2003 casus belli for invading Iraq.

Unfortunately, that never happened.

Again,, chemical weapons are certainly WMDs. Also, saddam put out false information (most likely on purpose) that he was in the process of attempting to get nuclear materials. That was probably true. He saw Iran as a true threat and he knew he would be in real danger if Iran became a nuclear power.

Again, his two son in laws revealed what he was wanting to do and the reasons why he kept his infrastructure for WMD production.

This was also clearly revealed by UNSCOM the UN independent council.

 

[mudwhistle]

Why did it need to be secretly reported?

This isn't a secret report. If it was, we wouldn't be hearing it.

We've heard rumors of this, but now we have the proof.

Bush didn't lie after all folks.

 

[MisterBeale]

 

[jknowgood]

4,000+ young American lives, tens of thousands of lost limbs and minds, thousands of destroyed families over one trillion dollars that we didn't have, and an even more destabilized Middle East.

For that?

No thanks.

1.2 million children ALIVE today because they weren't starved by Saddam's refusal to admit he DIDN"T have WMDs!
And now we know he DID!
Or how about these Iraqi's
"So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it"
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put the question to Barham Salih, the former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan's regional government and a former deputy prime minister of Iraq's federal government.
"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ... Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves. Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq. And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein -- the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."
So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it; and the fault for all that has gone wrong is ultimately with Iraqis themselves: It's a remarkable point of view to encounter in June 2013.
10 Years After the Fall of Saddam How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War - The Atlantic

You do realize that sending Americans to die by the thousands so some people in some other country can 'feel better' is not a just cause...

...a just cause for American military action is when there is a dire threat to our vital interests.

We had no vital interests in Iraq, therefore the invasion cannot be justified.

You have not right talking about our soldiers death's. After Obama successfully ends the iraq war, and then lets iraq be over run by terrorists. So all those soldiers died in vain. You have no credibility. Anyway Obama sends 3000 soldiers to fight Ebola, which they are not trained to do. How many will die?

 

[NYcarbineer]

4,000+ young American lives, tens of thousands of lost limbs and minds, thousands of destroyed families over one trillion dollars that we didn't have, and an even more destabilized Middle East.

For that?

No thanks.

1.2 million children ALIVE today because they weren't starved by Saddam's refusal to admit he DIDN"T have WMDs!
And now we know he DID!
Or how about these Iraqi's
"So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it"
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put the question to Barham Salih, the former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan's regional government and a former deputy prime minister of Iraq's federal government.
"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ... Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves. Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq. And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein -- the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."
So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it; and the fault for all that has gone wrong is ultimately with Iraqis themselves: It's a remarkable point of view to encounter in June 2013.
10 Years After the Fall of Saddam How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War - The Atlantic

You do realize that sending Americans to die by the thousands so some people in some other country can 'feel better' is not a just cause...

...a just cause for American military action is when there is a dire threat to our vital interests.

We had no vital interests in Iraq, therefore the invasion cannot be justified.

You have not right talking about our soldiers death's. After Obama successfully ends the iraq war, and then lets iraq be over run by terrorists. So all those soldiers died in vain. You have no credibility. Anyway Obama sends 3000 soldiers to fight Ebola, which they are not trained to do. How many will die?

You can believe that bullshit rightwing propaganda if you want, but it won't make it true.

 

[MisterBeale]

The elites are laughing at you chattle. Really, they are.

 

[Kosh]

Not exactly a mushroom cloud is it? We knew about Saddam's aging and mostly un-usable stockpile of chemicals, no one in the world could have made the case to invade over that alone. Bushco said he had a functional nuclear program and weaponized biologicals along with the missiles to deliver it to Europe. That's the lie that justified our invasion.

More importantly

Saddam had the opportunity to use these aged weapons TWICE in Dessert Storm and Iraqi Freedom and declined to do so. He knew what the repercussions would be if he crossed that line. Saddam was contained and not a threat outside his borders

Bush attacked anyway

A bigger impact has been a destabilization of the whole region. Bush claimed we would be treated as liberators and would be out quickly. He never said anything about needing to be there for decades

More far left propaganda based on programmed talking points.

Then again to the far left the history of Iraq did not begin until 2003.

Sorry Colin Powell is not holding up a nuclear bomb there, it is Anthrax..

The far left will do anything to protect Obama and his cut and run that led to the mess we have now.

 

[Kondor3]

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

Chemical weapons were always included under the umbrella of WMDs. Also, it has been proven that saddam deliberately put out information that he was trying to establish nuclear capability.

His two son in laws revealed a long time ago that saddam was trying to get nuclear weapons. They were executed.

Nolo contendere.

Finding chemical weapons there was no surprise.

Finding nuclear weapons (or precursor components) would have validated the 2003 casus belli for invading Iraq.

Unfortunately, that never happened.

Again,, chemical weapons are certainly WMDs. Also, saddam put out false information (most likely on purpose) that he was in the process of attempting to get nuclear materials. That was probably true. He saw Iran as a true threat and he knew he would be in real danger if Iran became a nuclear power.

Again, his two son in laws revealed what he was wanting to do and the reasons why he kept his infrastructure for WMD production.

This was also clearly revealed by UNSCOM the UN independent council.

You seem to be operating under the impression that I do not include chemical weapons under the WMD banner.

I do, indeed, include chemical weapons under the WMD banner.

I merely hold that the casus belli (the reason for going to war) for the Iraq War was NUCLEAR weapons - and their pursuit by the Iraq regime of those times.

This is not up for debate - this is a documented historical fact.

It is also a documented historical fact that no such weapons - nor their weaponized precursor components - were ever found.

Creating a condition in which the casus belli for the Iraq War proved to be false.

This, too, is not up for debate - this is a documented historical fact.

It was a false alarm - and, quite possibly, an intentionally contrived falsehood.

I don't like that any more than you do, but it is what it is.

 

[Care4all]

That makes two threads on this topic....both misrepresenting the matter. Congrats.

actually it is now the 3RD thread on this...

 

[jknowgood]

4,000+ young American lives, tens of thousands of lost limbs and minds, thousands of destroyed families over one trillion dollars that we didn't have, and an even more destabilized Middle East.

For that?

No thanks.

1.2 million children ALIVE today because they weren't starved by Saddam's refusal to admit he DIDN"T have WMDs!
And now we know he DID!
Or how about these Iraqi's
"So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it"
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put the question to Barham Salih, the former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan's regional government and a former deputy prime minister of Iraq's federal government.
"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ... Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves. Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq. And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein -- the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."
So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it; and the fault for all that has gone wrong is ultimately with Iraqis themselves: It's a remarkable point of view to encounter in June 2013.
10 Years After the Fall of Saddam How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War - The Atlantic

You do realize that sending Americans to die by the thousands so some people in some other country can 'feel better' is not a just cause...

...a just cause for American military action is when there is a dire threat to our vital interests.

We had no vital interests in Iraq, therefore the invasion cannot be justified.

You have not right talking about our soldiers death's. After Obama successfully ends the iraq war, and then lets iraq be over run by terrorists. So all those soldiers died in vain. You have no credibility. Anyway Obama sends 3000 soldiers to fight Ebola, which they are not trained to do. How many will die?

You can believe that bullshit rightwing propaganda if you want, but it won't make it true.

Did Obama not successfully end the iraq war?