ISIS Victim Kayla Mueller Sent This Letter To Her Family Before She Was Killed. :(

end of the road

Wurzelbert wrote: »

you really think bush and his folks made it all up? where were you in the 80s and 90s? i also recommend reading what bill clinton had to say about it all back in 2004 in time magazine...there was never a question whether saddam did once have wmd, that was a known fact and he used the stuff too...the thing is that much of it was and is unaccounted for...

he hadn't weapons of mass destruction in 2003. the invasian was based on lies

Wurzelbert

end of the road wrote: »

he hadn't weapons of mass destruction in 2003. the invasian was based on lies

nope, not really lies, just some assumptions that turned out were possibly wrong...

V_Moth

Wurzelbert wrote: »

nope, not really lies, just some assumptions that turned out were possibly wrong...

"Possibly wrong"?? Are they still looking for the WMDs in Iraq? Is that what IS are actually doing?

walkingshadow

Poor Kayla Mueller. Life means nothing to these animals.

Gatling

V_Moth wrote: »

"Possibly wrong"?? Are they still looking for the WMDs in Iraq? Is that what IS are actually doing?

Funny story several thousand us troops are now suffering symptoms worse than the original gulf war syndrome believed to have been caused by limited exposure to chemical weapons

ireland.man

Gatling wrote: »

Funny story several thousand us troops are now suffering symptoms worse than the original gulf war syndrome believed to have been caused by limited exposure to chemical weapons

That's not so funny.

end of the road

Wurzelbert wrote: »

nope, not really lies, just some assumptions that turned out were possibly wrong...

no, it was based on lies. there were no weapons of mass destruction

humanji

But there were. Iraq used them on Iran. It's well documented.

end of the road

humanji wrote: »

But there were. Iraq used them on Iran. It's well documented.

i'm aware he had weapons at one stage but that was a long time before 2003. were there any in 2003? if there were, why weren't they used? after all the dogs on the street knew for a while an invasian was planned.

Sociopath2

end of the road wrote: »

i'm aware he had weapons at one stage but that was a long time before 2003. were there any in 2003? if there were, why weren't they used? after all the dogs on the street knew for a while an invasian was planned.

The US knew Saddam had weapons, they sold him enough of them. They weren't sure what the current state of those weapons was and they were living in a post 9/11 environment where they weren't going to tolerate any threat to the US.

Saddam wasn't being entirely co-operative with weapons inspectors. In the climate that prevailed that was justification enough for the Bush administration to invade. They were wrong.

I don't know what happened to those weapons, whether they were destroyed, all used up or still hidden but the invasion was absolutely unnecessary.

I can see how the decision was reached given the paranoia at the time. It's easy to be objective now but there was a lot of confusion and misinformation at the time.

They were far too hasty to act and completely ****ed it up.

Tugboats

mrbrianj wrote: »

Who do you think killed the girl?

She was reading boards and you bored her to death

humanji

end of the road wrote: »

i'm aware he had weapons at one stage but that was a long time before 2003. were there any in 2003? if there were, why weren't they used? after all the dogs on the street knew for a while an invasian was planned.

What did he do with all the ones he had? Nobody knows. It would be sheer madness to assume that because you hadn't seen them in ages, they must be gone and it's all safe now. Their intel was that he had them, so they acted on that intel. That's not basing the invasion on lies. That's basing it on false intel.

Arsemageddon

humanji wrote: »

What did he do with all the ones he had? Nobody knows. It would be sheer madness to assume that because you hadn't seen them in ages, they must be gone and it's all safe now. Their intel was that he had them, so they acted on that intel. That's not basing the invasion on lies. That's basing it on false intel.

Not true, in 1999 UN weapons inspectors were saying Iraq had no WMD.

Here's a link for the 2006 US Congressional review of intelligence of WMD before and after the 2003 war. A summary can be found from p.52 onward.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt109-331.pdf

Wurzelbert

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Not true, in 1999 UN weapons inspectors were saying Iraq had no WMD.

Here's a link for the 2006 US Congressional review of intelligence of WMD before and after the 2003 war. A summary can be found from p.52 onward.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt109-331.pdf

to quote bill clinton on the 3rd gulf war in time magazine from june 28 2004: "at the moment the un inspectors were kicked out in '98 [...] there were substantial quantities of botulinum and aflatoxin, as i recall, some bioagents, i believe there were those , and vx and ricin, chemical agents unaccounted for [...] there was a lot of stuff unaccounted for [...] so that's why i thought bush did the right thing to go back."...and everybody who has followed world events for the past three or four decades will remember that saddam did use poison gas against iran and against his own people, i.e. did have and use wmd...and then there were numerous (think 15 or so) un resolutions saddam just ignored completely...simply to speak of "lies" in connection with the 3rd gulf war is just pathetic...

humanji

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Not true, in 1999 UN weapons inspectors were saying Iraq had no WMD.

Here's a link for the 2006 US Congressional review of intelligence of WMD before and after the 2003 war. A summary can be found from p.52 onward.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt109-331.pdf

Conslusion 4 states that they didn't know if all biological weapons were destroyed.

Nodin

humanji wrote: »

Conslusion 4 states that they didn't know if all biological weapons were destroyed.

Cheney and Wolfowitz etc felt that the information from the CIA wasn't saying what he wanted it to, so he set up the "Office of special plans"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans
which is hardly the work of a man surrounded by evidence.

humanji

They didn't need definitive proof. They only needed a hint of evidence. The war was certainly illegal, but the belief that there were WMD's was not a lie.

Arsemageddon

Wurzelbert wrote: »

to quote bill clinton on the 3rd gulf war in time magazine from june 28 2004: "at the moment the un inspectors were kicked out in '98 [...] there were substantial quantities of botulinum and aflatoxin, as i recall, some bioagents, i believe there were those , and vx and ricin, chemical agents unaccounted for [...] there was a lot of stuff unaccounted for [...] so that's why i thought bush did the right thing to go back."...and everybody who has followed world events for the past three or four decades will remember that saddam did use poison gas against iran and against his own people, i.e. did have and use wmd...and then there were numerous (think 15 or so) un resolutions saddam just ignored completely...simply to speak of "lies" in connection with the 3rd gulf war is just pathetic...

........and the head of the UN weapons inspection team said in 1999 that all WMD had been destroyed.

Bill Clinton presided over the Iraqi sanctions regime during the 1990s and carried out multiple air strikes on Iraq. You don't think it possible that he might be retrospectively attempting to justify his actions?

Clinton also refused to use the term genocide in relation to events in Rwanda and impeded from UN deploying military equipment and men to UNAMIR.

So I hope Bill will forgive me when I tell him to go fvck himself

Arsemageddon

humanji wrote: »

Conslusion 4 states that they didn't know if all biological weapons were destroyed.

It states that the ISG said the Iraqis had a capacity to re-establish a biological weapons programme as they retained some dual-use equipment (basic scientific and medical equipment) and some seed stock.

Furthermore, the ISG stated that given the extent of the sanctions regime it would have been almost impossible for Iraq to do so and no evidence that any efforts had been made to this after 1996

Egginacup

ireland.man wrote: »

I haven't seen it but I'm not surprised, sadly. Remember the double standards exist across conflicts and across situations. Israel killing teens throwing stones is acceptable but Assad killing teens throwing stones is enough to make rightwingers call for regime change. This poor woman is murdered (directly or indirectly by ISIS) and people first check to see her political affiliation before they decide toe express sympathy.

Gas, isn't it. Clubbing Occupy demonstrators off the street is ok, Saudi tanks rolling into Bahrain to grind pro-democracy demonstrators to mincemeat gets Washington's full support yet Iran or China cracking down on western orchestrated riots is an "outrageous insult to friends of democracy and human rights everywhere"

Arsemageddon

humanji

Yeah, but it also says in many places in the document that they don't fully know what was there and what wasn't. At the time and now, there's no definitive proof that all the weapons that they had, had been destroyed. The possibility of some still remaining was seen as good enough justification for invasion.

Sand

Always fun to go from the OP to the last page and see if the last posts had anything to do with the first....and nope.

Arsemageddon

humanji wrote: »

Yeah, but it also says in many places in the document that they don't fully know what was there and what wasn't. At the time and now, there's no definitive proof that all the weapons that they had, had been destroyed. The possibility of some still remaining was seen as good enough justification for invasion.

The way I'd see it is that the lads first decided that they were going to invade Iraq and then came up with the reason for the invasion afterwards. There is an excellent book called Cobra II which goes through the build up to the war. Well worth reading if you have the time.

We'll just have to agree to disagree

Arsemageddon

Sand wrote: »

Always fun to go from the OP to the last page and see if the last posts had anything to do with the first....and nope.

Same as every longish thread so, fvck knows where the Irish water mega thread is at now, it's probably gone like Lord of the Flies

Sand

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Same as every longish thread so, fvck knows where the Irish water mega thread is at now, it's probably gone like Lord of the Flies

Like Japanese soldiers, someone will have to pop in 20 years from now and tell them the war is over.

Wurzelbert

Arsemageddon wrote: »

haha, yeah, because he knew 100% for sure...he is patting himself on the back there for a job well done, like a politician...come on, just use common sense for a moment and look at saddam's wmd track record and the actual situation on the ground back then...
also, after a brief look into ritter i have say he seems like someone i would not want to buy a used car from...dodgy character it seems...

humanji

Arsemageddon wrote: »

The way I'd see it is that the lads first decided that they were going to invade Iraq and then came up with the reason for the invasion afterwards. There is an excellent book called Cobra II which goes through the build up to the war. Well worth reading if you have the time.

We'll just have to agree to disagree

Oh, I've no doubt that they couldn't care less what Saddam had. They were going in no matter what. It's just that there was a genuine possibility that that he had weapons they knew nothing about. If he didn't, then the invasion is easier and they can just fob it off and never be held accountable. If he did, he's seen as a monster that has to be stopped. They weren't going to be stopped and they never had to justify themselves.

Arsemageddon

Wurzelbert wrote: »

haha, yeah, because he knew 100% for sure...he is patting himself on the back there for a job well done, like a politician...come on, just use common sense for a moment and look at saddam's wmd track record and the actual situation on the ground back then...
also, after a brief look into ritter i have say he seems like someone i would not want to buy a used car from...dodgy character it seems...

He said there was no WMD.....

.......no WMD were found after the invasion

He was proven correct. What more do you want?

Wurzelbert

Arsemageddon wrote: »

He said there was no WMD.....

.......no WMD were found after the invasion

He was proven correct. What more do you want?

what matters when discussing 3rd gulf and bush is what they knew then, not what we think we know now...and the fact that nothing was found doesn't really prove anything, though i too believe the stuff is gone, yet it's really just unaccounted for...there was no reason to trust saddam on wmd then, and ritter had no way of knowing anything for certain...he should have said "i think"...