Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by QGator2414, Jun 20, 2014.
Also, Syria has much of what Iraq had before we invaded.
Then I hope we sure feel dumb for intentionally giving Iraq all of those biological & chemical weapons and nuclear technology.
As I see it there's only one way to remedy our blunder - by installing our own prop dictator via a coup and then eventually supplying that person with tons of biological and chemical weapons so he can fight against the group that ended up with all the weapons we injected into the region 20 years ago.
And then when the merry-go-round is done we can say "daddy, daddy, can we go again" and with dollars in his eyes our MIC daddy will say "absolutely!"
Which speaks poorly of our intelligence, our military (don't believe it is on them), or our planning. Or a combination of factors.
Saddam Hussein killed 5,000 Kurdish men, women and children in a gas attack. Don't know why it strains
credulity to think he kept some on hand...
The Middle East is a much more complicated issue than some on too hot think it is imo...
And none of us (feel good about this assumption so sorry if a poster on here was/is privy...) have the intel or have been briefed to understand the full dynamics of it!
Yet some sure seem to know Bush/Cheney and their cohorts like Clinton just wanted to deceive the public on this issue and have a full understanding of the Middle East...
While horrific in nature I am not sure what this proves. Most anyone who ever knew anything about Saddam knew he possessed chemical weapons at one time. This happened 14 years before we invaded and three years before Desert Storm.
Saddam gassing the Kurds was no secret - our government knew and did nothing because back then Iraq and Saddam were doing our bidding.
No worries I agree with your post too. Lol...
I'll see your Ron Paul and raise you a Hillary Clinton.
Already linked but also common knowledge.
I have no idea what this means.
Not orangeandblue, but a couple of links for you:
Rumsfeld aids Saddam Hussein in obtaining chemical weapons -
There are many, many more easily found via Google
But... but... but our resident revisionists/liberals say that Iraq had no weapons of mas destruction, a.k.a., WMD's.
If I remember correctly our activities in Iraq attracted radicals from all over the world and then we slaughtered them on site. Was that "chasing old demons" or fighting terrorists?
Lol... then why did we need the British intelligence agencies to tell Bush that they were certain that there were WMD's in Iraq? No one in our country knew about it but Britain did? That horse crap!
The new favorite word of libs is nutjob. That is what one must be that doesn't think many weapons were moved before the Iraq invasion.
Saddam refused inspections by UN investigators to prove he had no weapons of mass destruction. He refused for some reason and that was his downfall.
The judge that sentenced him to death was recently killed by terrorists.
You do realize that Clinton in a state of the union address warned against Sadam and chemical weapons and that he had them and had the ability to deliver them.
Clinton also ordered air attacks against Iraq, while he, Clinton, was in office.
So one need to rethink all their comments about Bush lying. If he did ,so did Clinton.
But if one only listens to the lib BS, I guess they have no reason to think differently.
These are the facts that our resident revisionists willfully ignore.
Are you actually unfamiliar with the timeline?
You know that there was a long disarmament process that followed the Gulf War, right? That there was WMDs in the 1980s in Iraq is not a secret, particularly because we helped them develop them against Iran.
In the 90's and 2000 and 2001 practically everyone, based on info available, thought wmd's were in Iraq. Those that didn't think so were only guessing. All intel pointed to wmd's in Iraq.