jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (34 posts)

Syria about to use the WMD's that weren't in Iraq anymore.

  1. Barefootfae profile image60
    Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago

    http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012 … order?lite

    It was long believed they had been moved there. Now we see them.

  2. Barefootfae profile image60
    Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago

    I wonder if we can get the left to admit this is where they came from.

    1. eternals3ptember profile image61
      eternals3ptemberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      What is your ulitmate goal here? Do you gain some sick satisfaction? "Oh ho ho, those libs deny it!"
      We knew the Iraqi government had moved it's cache of WMDs; This isn't a left/right issue.

      1. Barefootfae profile image60
        Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You are the first liberal who has ever admitted that.
        Bush didn't lie then did he?

        1. eternals3ptember profile image61
          eternals3ptemberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I don't know what Bush believed, or what was the truth, but as far as I know they were not there, they were not a threat.
          I may be a liberal, but I am also raised military and I am biased against anyone who decides that my friends and family must risk themselves for something that we held on faith. An in the end were wrong about.. I can't blame Bush, because Congress stood by, the Cabinet abettted the decision, we wanted blood, etc...

          1. Barefootfae profile image60
            Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            And Bill Clinton used the same........yes the same....intel years before when he wanted to invade.
            Was he lying?

            1. Petra Vlah profile image60
              Petra Vlahposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The difference is that Clinton DID NOT invade based on rumors

              1. HowardBThiname profile image89
                HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                But have you read the Iraqi Freedom Act that Clinton signed into law? He advocated the removal of Saddam. Bush just complied with Clinton's plan. What it shows was that the intel at the time (right or wrong) supported the presence of WMDs. And of course, Saddam, himself, told the world he had them - before he said the opposite.

  3. psycheskinner profile image79
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    We knew for sure Hussein had WMDs because they were used in the genocide of Kurds in the 1980s.  But they were meant to be destroyed in the 1990s. The question was did he rebuild them again. The US and UK governments thought he had; the second Gulf war demonstrated that they were wrong.

    Syria has developed weapons of the same kind.  These weapons were not sourced from Iraq and cast no light whatsoever on that historical situation. Sarin is easy to make.  They made some.  The hard part is generally the delivery system to use it as a WMD.

    To the best of public knowledge Bush as, and remains, wrong about Hussein having WMDs after the first Gulf war. For the simple reason that he was giving incorrect briefings based on mis-read satellite and drone images.

    No one mainstream source that I saw ever suggested it was a deliberate lie.  Any more than Rice's comments about Benghazi were.  They got a bad briefing.

    As for 'widely beleived'.  I have never heard anyone suggest Hussein had the WMDs and sent them to Syria and I find the idea implausible.  It would be far easier to make them on site. All you need is beans. It isn't hard.

    If Syria only has Hussein's sarin we can stop worrying.  It degrades over a course of months and 10 years later it would be about as dangerous as talcum powder.

    1. Barefootfae profile image60
      Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      As I said....Bill Clinton used the same stuff.

      1. psycheskinner profile image79
        psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Could you be just a little specific about what you are claiming?

        If you mean the existence WMDs before the first Gulf war. Um. They did exist them and were destroyed in the first Gulf war.

        That's why they weren't there later.

        As I just said.

        1. Barefootfae profile image60
          Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Bill Clinton...in his administration....first claimed Saddam had WMD's and Congress approved an invasion at that time using the same intel the Bush administration used.
          All the Democrat politicians who claimed Bush lied voted for the invasion. Twice in fact because they also agreed to it with Bush.

          1. psycheskinner profile image79
            psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            It was different intel because it was from the time the WMDs were there.

            And they found, documented and destroyed them.

            I am not sure what is confusing about that.

            Bush made the understandable mistake of thinking the WMDs had been rebuilt when in fact... they hadn't.  Thus when they went back they couldn't find them.  They found stuff that could reasonable be mistaken for them. It was just a mistake.

            All of which has nothing to do with Syria.

            1. Barefootfae profile image60
              Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Who destroyed what?

              1. psycheskinner profile image79
                psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Before forming strong opinions maybe you should do more research.  Here is a simple primer.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_w … estruction

                1. Barefootfae profile image60
                  Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I believe nothing from Wikipedia. Period.

                  1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
                    Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Maybe looking at some of the 117 sources posted at the end of the article might help you. I know it's not a personal blog or World News Daily but the articles usually are well sourced.

      2. eternals3ptember profile image61
        eternals3ptemberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Skinner is saying that there were WMDs when Clinton was in office. Then they were destroyed.

    2. Repairguy47 profile image59
      Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
      --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

    3. Repairguy47 profile image59
      Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
      -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

    4. Repairguy47 profile image59
      Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
      -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    5. Repairguy47 profile image59
      Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
      -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

    6. Repairguy47 profile image59
      Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
      -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

  4. Barefootfae profile image60
    Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago
  5. Barefootfae profile image60
    Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago
    1. psycheskinner profile image79
      psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Interesting.  But I am still more inclined to believe what every chemist says about the chemical qualities of sarin and the conclusions of Charles Duelfer (the head of the Iraq Survey Group) than a book written by Sadam Hussein's second in command  of the airforce. The first two are primary sources of known impartiality.

    2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
      Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Wait, didn't you just get finished saying that you don't believe anything on wikipedia? And now you're using it as a source?

      That's kinda funny, you gotta admit.

      We know that Saddam Hussein had WMDs at some point, because the USA still has the receipts. We sold them to him when he was at war with Iran back in the 80s, remember?

      1. Barefootfae profile image60
        Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah I used Wikipedia because that's what some like.

        1. psycheskinner profile image79
          psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          If you think what you do is our fault, then I guess I see how you got to what Syria has done just in the last few months is Saddam Hussein's fault even though he was dead at the time.

  6. Barefootfae profile image60
    Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago
  7. sabrebIade profile image83
    sabrebIadeposted 4 years ago

    ‘Curveball,’ man who lied about WMDs, comes clean
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blo … _blog.html

 
working