Who Is Right About WMDs in Iraq, the Right or Trump?

[Billo_Really]

The UN "Inspectors" were absolutely incompetent and molasses slow…

There was no reason to rush and that wasn't Bush's call to make.

If Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction he had ages to hide them most likely in Syria.

No country gives its weapons to its enemy. And even if he wanted to, there is no way a convoy of semi's can travel over a 1000 miles of open desert in one of the most watched areas of the planet without getting noticed by US satellites.

The UN always has been a fuck up and always will be… Only one thing worse than nationalism is globalism. Fact

Right. Organizations dedicated to peace are a problem for those who believe in global domination.

 

[Billo_Really]

But the WMD wasn't the only or actual reason for going in there. There's so much that people don't understand about the subject & can't be discussed about the subject and will not be told. And Bush didn't start anything there was technically no end to the war Saddam started when he broke the peace agreement.

Are you saying Iraq didn't have the right to defend themselves? If someone kept dropping bombs in your backyard, you'd shoot back to.

 

[Billo_Really]

Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

Of course the Hussein apologists and other LWNJ miscreants in the forum will probably try to say that sarin is harmless.

It's not harmless, but its not a WMD in the state they found it in.

 

[Rustic]

The UN "Inspectors" were absolutely incompetent and molasses slow…

There was no reason to rush and that wasn't Bush's call to make.

If Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction he had ages to hide them most likely in Syria.

No country gives its weapons to its enemy. And even if he wanted to, there is no way a convoy of semi's can travel over a 1000 miles of open desert in one of the most watched areas of the planet without getting noticed by US satellites.

The UN always has been a fuck up and always will be… Only one thing worse than nationalism is globalism. Fact

Right. Organizations dedicated to peace are a problem for those who believe in global domination.

Both Saddam Hussein's government and syria government were secular and were not enemies, at least most of the time. Of course no one gets along in the Middle East long-term… LOL

 

[Billo_Really]

He wasn't lying about the intelligence. The intelligence was phony. Bush is culpable, no doubt. But he wasn't operating in a vacuum. There was the Mossad bullshit, the Feith-Wolfowitz-et al, and members of the press, remember Thomas Cakewalk Friedman?

Of coarse he lied. He told the British he was going to "fix the intel around the policy", then he went out and did just that. That is your smoking gun.

 

[Rustic]

Only a fucking moron would think the UN has the good of the planet in mind... lol

 

[Billo_Really]

Both Saddam Hussein's government and syria government were secular and were not enemies, at least most of the time. Of course no one gets along in the Middle East long-term… LOL

They were not allies.

 

[Billo_Really]

Only a fucking moron would think the UN has the good of the planet in mind... lol

Read their Charter and tell me what's wrong with it.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

You really need to learn some history because you clearly have a problem comprehending the context of those words.


"He" does not refer to a geographical area.

So the "them" was WMD you acknowledge.

Now, semantics Clown, we must focus on the "he" when Bush said "As it turned out "He" did not have them.

Who do you think "he" was?

Do you deny "he" was Saddam Hussein?

And what nation was Saddam the dictator of?

Do you deny that Saddam ruled Iraq?

Do you deny Iraq is a geographical area?

Bush said Turns out Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction?


Got it clown?

 

[Rustic]

Both Saddam Hussein's government and syria government were secular and were not enemies, at least most of the time. Of course no one gets along in the Middle East long-term… LOL

They were not allies.

Anytime that the UN is involved there is no facts involved, Just corruption.

 

[Rustic]

Only a fucking moron would think the UN has the good of the planet in mind... lol

Read their Charter and tell me what's wrong with it.

Globalism

 

[Billo_Really]

There is a very significant difference between what you claimed that Blix said and what Blix actually said.

Are you really too stupid to comprehend that fact? You were wrong. You drank the kool-aid. You can either admit that to yourself or continue to exercise your right to remain ignorant.

It wasn't a claim, I "quoted" him, you dumbass!

And its not the only time he said it. Go read his official reports to the UN off the UN website, then go have yourself a full plate of crow.

 

[Billo_Really]

Globalism

That's an economic ideology that has nothing to do with peace and sovereignty between nations.

 

[Billo_Really]

Anytime that the UN is involved there is no facts involved, Just corruption.

You're wrong. There are facts, as well as corruption.

 

[Billo_Really]

Are you going for the "most lies in one post" record?

For instance, you claimed that enforcing the "no-fly zones" was illegal. Yet you cannot cite any law that was broken. WTF?

Running over a 1000 sorties dropping over 600 bombs on over 300 targets is not no-fly zone enforcement.

 

[healthmyths]

cnelsen, post: 17090690

He wasn't lying about the intelligence. The intelligence was phony. Bush is culpable, no doubt. But he wasn't operating in a vacuum. There was the Mossad bullshit, the Feith-Wolfowitz-et al, and members of the press, remember Thomas Cakewalk Friedman?

I agree on pre-inspection intelligence. Bush deliberately and clearly lied about intelligence on March 17, 2003.

If Bush actually had intelligence that left no doubt that Saddam Hussein was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from UN inspectors, he had to be lying.

(1) Ten days prior he had no such intelligence when he offered in a draft resoloution to the UNSC that Saddam Hussein could remain in power if the inspectors could finish their work within ten days. If Bush had that undoubtably intelligence he could not make that offer to call off the invasion.

(2) So we are to believe that our intelligence agencies gathered sometime between March 7 through March 17 this finding that Iraq was actually hiding WMD from the inspectors. Not at all likely.

(3) If some final moments of decision intelligence was found about actual WMD being hidden during that brief time period, doubtless intelligence would to have witnessed the actual physical location, type and quantities of WMD discovered. We know post-invasion that the invaders had absolutely no idea as to where all that hidden WMD could be found.

(4) If Bush had in fact intelligence on hidden WMD he had already obligated himself and the USA to provide that intelligence to the inspectors in order to be verified. Then when found to be false war would have been avoided. Bush lied by withholding intelligence because he also claimed that all US intelligence was being turned over to the inspectors.

There was no last minute intelligence. Bush clearly lied they day in March when he decided to invade and kill to find those hidden WMD.

Explain to me then why Saddam let 576,000 children die?
FACT: In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

Consider that from 1991 to 1995 an average of 144,000 children starved. Do you know why?
Because Saddam would NOT comply with UN sanctions which dictated he simply acknowledge there were NO WMDs.
Saddam would rather 576,000 children starve to death.
Thank goodness for the compassion of Americans. Because if Saddam were still in power today, nearly 3.6 million more children would have starved!

 

[Rustic]

The UN is nothing but corrupt

 

[healthmyths]

The UN is nothing but corrupt

Still doesn't alter the reality that if Saddam hadn't been removed and was still in power based on his past 3.6 million children would have starved.
That was one of many reasons logical,compassionate, realistic people just wouldn't believe Saddam be so cruel as to let children starve when all he had do was
comply with UN sanctions by admitting and allowing inspections that there were NO WMDs.

 

[Muhammed]

Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

Of course the Hussein apologists and other LWNJ miscreants in the forum will probably try to say that sarin is harmless.

It's not harmless, but its not a WMD in the state they found it in.

Sarin is a WMD.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Yo g, i am honored to be quoted in your OP. But the quote is obviously me being sarcastic.63% of Republicans STILL Think Iraq Had WMDs

Sarcasm is not readily obvious in written form. Glad to hear you don't believe that Saddam Hussein was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from UN inspectors on March 17, 2003, because Bush lied live in TV about that.

In the context of the thread, it was perfectly obvious. That is the problem with quoting out of context.