ADVERTISEMENT

Wait a Minute! Chemical Weapons Were Found in Iraq?

Re: so you're saying

Originally posted by qazplm:
we spent over a trillion dollars and a whole lotta lives for something that was going to happen soon anyways, and you still aren't sure it was a mistake??

I mean I don't think I agree with your premise, but assuming arguendo that it's true, then what a waste of time, lives and a whole lot of money.
Click to expand...
That's not necessarily what I'm saying. I don't know if I want to get long-winded about this tonight, but I acknowledge the possibility that the invasion could actually have been a positive for the region, and more importantly, a strategic victory for US interests. However, any strategic gains were waylaid by tactical blunders, the worst of which was failing to acknowledge the "you break it, you own it" Powell doctrine. Almost as bad was dismantling the Iraqi army without any sound policy of their reintegration into society. The comedy of errors in the immediate aftermath of the overthrow is almost beyond comprehension, and no assessment of the current situation should fail to take those errors into account. I still shake my head when I think about quotes from the administration at the time like, "they'll greet us as liberators".
 
Clinton on WMD's




"Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability-notably 5000 gallons of botulinum, which cause botulism; 2000 gallons on anthrax; 25 biological filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has greatly understated its production". Text of Clinton's speech to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon, 2.17.1998. So are people calling Clinton a liar also? Because we didn't find any WMDs!




NEXT!!!!




"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
July 22, 2003

http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#wR6nIpoLli

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/
[Link Directly To This Entry]










America is threatened by an "unholy axis":

"We must exercise responsibility not just at home, but around the world. On the eve of a new century, we have the power and the duty to build a new era of peace and security.

We must combat an unholy axis of new threats from terrorists, international criminals, and drug traffickers. These 21st century predators feed on technology and the free flow of information... And they will be all the more lethal if weapons of mass destruction fall into their hands.

Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."

President Clinton
State of the Union address
January 27, 1998
 
Re: Clinton on WMD's

Originally posted by threeeputtt:



"Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability-notably 5000 gallons of botulinum, which cause botulism; 2000 gallons on anthrax; 25 biological filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has greatly understated its production". Text of Clinton's speech to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon, 2.17.1998. So are people calling Clinton a liar also? Because we didn't find any WMDs!



NEXT!!!!



"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
July 22, 2003

http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#wR6nIpoLli

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/
[Link Directly To This Entry]







America is threatened by an "unholy axis":

"We must exercise responsibility not just at home, but around the world. On the eve of a new century, we have the power and the duty to build a new era of peace and security.

We must combat an unholy axis of new threats from terrorists, international criminals, and drug traffickers. These 21st century predators feed on technology and the free flow of information... And they will be all the more lethal if weapons of mass destruction fall into their hands.

Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."

President Clinton
State of the Union address
January 27, 1998
Click to expand...
Did I call Bush a liar? Did the Clinton administration invade Iraq? Why turn this thread into something it isn't?
 
Re: Clinton on WMD's


I never made ANY mention of anything, just posted comments of one President. There are plenty of mistakes by BOTH parties and ALL 3 Presidents. People that know me know I asked WHAT will Iraq look like when we are done as these are tribes and clans as a culture. I happen to know many retired 3 and 4 star guys as I live in San Antonio area where many settled. Many of them asked the same thing, so don't assume I was with Bush's decision to invade.
This post was edited on 10/18 12:29 PM by threeeputtt
 
Re: so you're saying

So how many of those are left and why aren't you advocating we invade and overthrow all of them?
 
Yep, why is always the most important question IMHO. My simple take, these either were not the WMD's the administration went to war over or going to war was never really about WMD's.
 
Originally posted by SDBoiler1:
Great spin job by Max Fisher to support the left's narrative. Well-recorded history? The history of WMD in Iraq is one of the least-understood parts of the Iraq wars. The media has taken great pains to make sure certain events are either underreported or completely unreported.

Again, what about the chemical weapons trucked from Iraq to Syria and the Assad regime prior to the US invasion? You, like Max Fisher, conveniently omit this part of the story. US troops saw this being done. To my knowledge only one NY Post writer reported anything about this. Now that's a cover up.
Click to expand...
so if we are to believe you, they were trucked to Syria. So why did we invade Iraq then since the chemicals weapons were long gone.

I had little doubt in mind that Saddam had no chemical weapons left as at the time of the invasion. Saddam may have been a dictator but he wasn't stupid or suicidal. In the days leading up to the war, he gave a lot of concessions including giving nuclear arm inspectors plenty leeway to search and search. His action seemed to me at the time like he was some guy who had previously been blustering, but when the drums of invasion started beating loudly, he was willing to drop the bravado. He really would rather have complied with any demands regarding WMD rather than get invaded.
 
yes

those countries and situations are exactly like Iraq. No differences at all. You're a simpleton. I can stop "licking balls" but you'll always be a simpleton.
 
simple questions with simple answers

not hard to see why these "WMDs" weren't talked about.
 
Re: yes

Really? That's the best you can do? You walked right into that one. And you are an Obama "ball licker". I do not recall you ever saying one negative thing about him on this board. You're always the first to rush in to defend him when anyone posts anything you take umbrage with about Obama - which is often.
 
BS


Originally posted by qazplm:
the whole world knows that Iraq had decrepit, unusable bits of chemical weapons.

Pretty sure that doesn't remotely change whether or not it supports a rationale of invasion.

My world remains un-collapsed. Sorry.
Click to expand...
Fact is, leftists tried to use the "no WMDs" as a way to try to berate Bush.

And, yes, in that regard, your world did collapse. "Sorry."
 
it's all it takes

you don't deserve my best quite frankly. Anyone who compares troops in Germany to troops in Iraq is an idiot.
 
so you think

finding old bits of decrepit unusable chemical weapons that are literally decades old, clearly not in any way kept in any kind of usuable condition sitting around somewhere equates to a "WMD?"

lol OK. I hear they had a lot of unused rat poison and bleach laying around too.
 
while Gr8 and I agree about 10% of the time, his attempts at logical thought and lack of bias are light-years ahead of yours. He gets some stuff wrong (then again so do we all) but he gets them wrong honestly, you on the other hand...
 
Re: it's all it takes


I will not back down to jagoffs like you. You're absolutely predictable. All you do is deflect and try to go tangential. You went down the line of 10,000 troops and why would we stay in Iraq? I just gave three examples of exactly where the USA has done that and stayed > 60 years in each place. If you can't see at least some parallels, you're a buffoon.

Petty, pompous, Progressive.
 
lol what tangent?

I've said it directly. You gave three absolutely unrelated examples. Something that anyone who has spent five minutes studying history would look at and go, no, troops staying Germany in 1960 through today has zero similarity to keeping troops in Iraq. Same with Japan, etc.

I see someone did teach you alliteration though, so kudos.
 
Re: lol what tangent?

Why, in your twisted thought processes, are these three examples "absolutely unrelated"? Especially so for Korea. I never said that these examples were EXACTLY the same situation - rarely in the US history of warfare are any two examples EXACTLY the same. By the way, we are still in Germany to this day - 69 years. To say there is "zero" similarity is being disingenuous, but you are very good at being that.

Going back to my earlier comment, I contend that Obama screwed the pooch by pulling out of Iraq prematurely. You jumped all over me for saying that without offering any good explanation why. Your Messiah f^cked up and left a vaccum of leadership in Iraq, ultimately resulting in the current state-of-affairs we have right now. If the US had stayed in Iraq, do you think ISIS would have invaded Iraq and took over 40% of the country's land mass?
 
you cant be serious

ok, on the off chance that this is a legit question let's list all of the myriad ways they are absolutely unrelated.

1. Germany, and Japan declared war with us. Korea we saved from extinction. Both situations wildly different from our invasion of Iraq.

2. All three were long-time countries, fairly homogenous, with few religious, racial or national issues. All three had some history with democracy, maybe not S. Korea initially but they were UTTERLY depended on us for survival. Iraq is not dependent on us for survival, and is a Frankenstein mess of religions, ethnicity, and national origins.

3. Which brings us to the Soviet Union/Russia and China. Germany and Japan (and to a slightly lesser extent S. Korea since N. Korea was as much a Soviet client state as Chinese) were facing existential threats from either the SU/Russia or China. They needed us there not to make their government work or to protect them from themselves but from greater forces.

4. All three were and are staunch American allies from the start. Germany appreciated our protection and our aid, Japan was culturally set up to be appreciative of us as victors, and S. Korea doesn't survive without us. Iraq has defied us from the beginning, too concerned with settling old debts, power grabs, corruption, etc.

5. We are "still in Germany today" because no one in Germany is shooting at us, they want us there, and there is mutual benefit to our being there. We are still in Korea for the exact same reasons. We are barely in Japan anymore but again, mutual benefit and no one is shooting at us. None of that exists in Iraq. They don't want us there, they are not reliable as an ally, they are allied with our enemies, they cannot maintain control over more than a third of their "country" and oh, lots of people shooting at us and blowing us up.

6. The military's we trained in the three countries you listed are outstanding, functional and able to defend themselves. We wasted a trillion dollars training Iraq's military to watch them run at the first sign of trouble with an enemy with vastly inferior numbers and with reduced quantity of quality weapons (until they effectively stole them from the Iraqis--stuff we gave them and trained them on).

I could continue on and on. There is literally nothing that binds the three you listed with Iraq. Not the circumstances under which we entered the country, not the actual makeup of the "country" or the demographics, history or culture, not the violence levels post-conflict, not the reception we received, reliability as an ally, benefit to ourselves for being there, danger to our troops, necessity for our presence, utility of our presence, cost of our presence.
 
Re: you cant be serious

Originally posted by qazplm:
ok, on the off chance that this is a legit question let's list all of the myriad ways they are absolutely unrelated.

1. Germany, and Japan declared war with us. Korea we saved from extinction. Both situations wildly different from our invasion of Iraq.

2. All three were long-time countries, fairly homogenous, with few religious, racial or national issues. All three had some history with democracy, maybe not S. Korea initially but they were UTTERLY depended on us for survival. Iraq is not dependent on us for survival, and is a Frankenstein mess of religions, ethnicity, and national origins.

3. Which brings us to the Soviet Union/Russia and China. Germany and Japan (and to a slightly lesser extent S. Korea since N. Korea was as much a Soviet client state as Chinese) were facing existential threats from either the SU/Russia or China. They needed us there not to make their government work or to protect them from themselves but from greater forces.

4. All three were and are staunch American allies from the start. Germany appreciated our protection and our aid, Japan was culturally set up to be appreciative of us as victors, and S. Korea doesn't survive without us. Iraq has defied us from the beginning, too concerned with settling old debts, power grabs, corruption, etc.

5. We are "still in Germany today" because no one in Germany is shooting at us, they want us there, and there is mutual benefit to our being there. We are still in Korea for the exact same reasons. We are barely in Japan anymore but again, mutual benefit and no one is shooting at us. None of that exists in Iraq. They don't want us there, they are not reliable as an ally, they are allied with our enemies, they cannot maintain control over more than a third of their "country" and oh, lots of people shooting at us and blowing us up.

6. The military's we trained in the three countries you listed are outstanding, functional and able to defend themselves. We wasted a trillion dollars training Iraq's military to watch them run at the first sign of trouble with an enemy with vastly inferior numbers and with reduced quantity of quality weapons (until they effectively stole them from the Iraqis--stuff we gave them and trained them on).

I could continue on and on. There is literally nothing that binds the three you listed with Iraq. Not the circumstances under which we entered the country, not the actual makeup of the "country" or the demographics, history or culture, not the violence levels post-conflict, not the reception we received, reliability as an ally, benefit to ourselves for being there, danger to our troops, necessity for our presence, utility of our presence, cost of our presence.
Click to expand...
Most of this is pretty dead-on . . but "barely in Japan" . . . really?
 
Qaz. Seriously. Barely in Japan?

We have an entire carrier strike group, two air wings, an entire helicopter wing, an Expeditionary Strike Group, two major naval bases, a Naval Air Station, a major Marine Corps base, the second or third largest Naval Hospital, an entire Fleet command, a Mibe Countermeasures squadron and four MCMs, significant communications infrastructure...

Our footprint in Japan is huge. I would bet it is larger than any other country outside the US including all of those mentioned. It is certainly the largest Navy presence outside of the US, and Yokosuka is the fifth largest Navy base the US has, maybe fourth... Behind Norfolk, San Diego, and Pearl... And Pearl doesn't have a carrier!
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
Between Sasebo and Yokosuka, there are 19 ships home ported. 40,000 sailors and marines on the bases and operating (that number is between Korea, Guam, and Japan). I would guess at least 75% of those are in Japan. 60+ aircraft stationed there, not including those deployed to the 7th fleet area of ops...

No idea how many army and Air Force...
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
I meant actual ground troops

while I don't deny the power/import of naval assets, I don't view it remotely the same as having significant ground troops permanently based there like in Germany and Korea.
 
he'd already had his butt kicked once by us

he absolutely knew the next time we came in there, he was done. He kept up appearances for the sake of cowing his own people, and his enemies (like Iran). but when push came to shove, he wasn't about to do anything that was going to bring the US down on him.

He simply underestimated the desire of the admin to attempt to remake Iraq in it's own image.
 
Originally posted by qazplm:
while I don't deny the power/import of naval assets, I don't view it remotely the same as having significant ground troops permanently based there like in Germany and Korea.
Click to expand...

That is a particularly narrow view. Do you think we all live on the ships? While I will rarely say this to anyone as it pertains to opinion, you are flat wrong here and would do well to admit it for once.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
I think there's a fundamental difference

between permanent ground forces and naval forces yes. One is a lot harder to move than the other. One envisions a much stronger commitment than the other. You disagree, that's fine. Don't play this whole "admit you are wrong baloney." No one here does it, you don't do it, about time folks on here stopped holding me to some standard no one else is either held to or expected to be held to.
 
Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:
Originally posted by qazplm:
while I don't deny the power/import of naval assets, I don't view it remotely the same as having significant ground troops permanently based there like in Germany and Korea.
Click to expand...

That is a particularly narrow view. Do you think we all live on the ships? While I will rarely say this to anyone as it pertains to opinion, you are flat wrong here and would do well to admit it for once.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Click to expand...
For a real kick check out his posts in the gay marriage thread.
straw_men.jpg
 
Originally posted by qazplm:
between permanent ground forces and naval forces yes. One is a lot harder to move than the other. One envisions a much stronger commitment than the other. You disagree, that's fine. Don't play this whole "admit you are wrong baloney." No one here does it, you don't do it, about time folks on here stopped holding me to some standard no one else is either held to or expected to be held to.
Click to expand...
We cannot load Fleet Activities Yokosuka, Fleet Activities Sasebo, the Marine Corps Base on Okinawa, and NAS Atsugi up on a plane or a ship and just leave any time we damn well please either.

I don't disagree: you are flat out ignorant in this case, and probably should refrain from further comment on it! Your statement about barely being in Japan is one of the most ignorant things you've ever posted on this forum. There is no way to qualify it otherwise.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
Mind numbing that you think "permanent ground troops" are somehow more impactful than operating two nuclear reactors in the belly of the largest floating object ever constructed in human history less than an hour train ride from the GD Imperial Palace in e only country ever subjected to the use of nuclear weapons.

Never mind the Third Marine Expeditionary Force and its 27,000 Marines deployed across seven camps in Okinawa, NAS Iwakuni, and Camp Fuji on the mainland.

... But we are barely there anymore.

"I was wrong." I've said it. It isn't hard.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:
Mind numbing that you think "permanent ground troops" are somehow more impactful than operating two nuclear reactors in the belly of the largest floating object ever constructed in human history less than an hour train ride from the GD Imperial Palace in e only country ever subjected to the use of nuclear weapons.

Never mind the Third Marine Expeditionary Force and its 27,000 Marines deployed across seven camps in Okinawa, NAS Iwakuni, and Camp Fuji on the mainland.

... But we are barely there anymore.

"I was wrong." I've said it. It isn't hard.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Click to expand...
You forgot our numerous golf courses in Okinawa, too. Those indicate we are only there temporarily.
 
yes I think having permanent ground forces

stationed on bases in a country says TONS more about a lot of things than having primarily naval based fleets there. BOTH about the magnitude and type of threats faced internally and externally. I get it, your a Navy guy who thinks I've denigrated the Navy's role. Has nothing to do with that. We USED to have a whole lot of people on the land in Japan, now we don't...why?
Because we and Japan don't need it. We DO still have a ton of folks on the ground in Germany and Korea. Why? Because of fear of Russia and to have a friendly foreign staging area for forays into the ME. Why still in Korea? Because we fear NK invading. No one legitimately fears Japan being invaded anytime soon, nor do they fear Japan needs to be contained. We maintain a large naval presence to deter China, has little to do with Japan.
 
Originally posted by qazplm:
stationed on bases in a country says TONS more about a lot of things than having primarily naval based fleets there. BOTH about the magnitude and type of threats faced internally and externally. I get it, your a Navy guy who thinks I've denigrated the Navy's role. Has nothing to do with that. We USED to have a whole lot of people on the land in Japan, now we don't...why?
Because we and Japan don't need it. We DO still have a ton of folks on the ground in Germany and Korea. Why? Because of fear of Russia and to have a friendly foreign staging area for forays into the ME. Why still in Korea? Because we fear NK invading. No one legitimately fears Japan being invaded anytime soon, nor do they fear Japan needs to be contained. We maintain a large naval presence to deter China, has little to do with Japan.
Click to expand...

All this other stuff is strawman. We have a massive presence in Japan because it is strategically advantageous. It could easily be argued that maintaining a presence in Iraq would also be strategically advantageous, especially given the present evidence pointing to that fact: we left a vacuum, and are paying the price.

Either way, you statement about barely being in Japan is simply ludicrous.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
Originally posted by qazplm:
while Gr8 and I agree about 10% of the time, his attempts at logical thought and lack of bias are light-years ahead of yours. He gets some stuff wrong (then again so do we all) but he gets them wrong honestly, you on the other hand...
Click to expand...
Which means.... absolutely nothing.

That's just nonsensical b.s.
 
Re: so you think


Originally posted by qazplm:
finding old bits of decrepit unusable chemical weapons that are literally decades old, clearly not in any way kept in any kind of usuable condition sitting around somewhere equates to a "WMD?"

lol OK. I hear they had a lot of unused rat poison and bleach laying around too.
Click to expand...
if you're desperately trying to miss you point, you've succeeded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tjreese

This can't be true or we would have heard about it on CNN, MSNBC, CBS and ABC or other media. Besides,

Replies
14
Views
2K
Free Board: General Discussion Forum
typeviic
typeviic
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back