Chemical weapons came from Saddam's Iraq

Another one of your typical three words, no facts, no base responses.

 

The Syrian chemical weapons that are being discussed now.

 

Is this a liberal admitting that Iraq did in fact have WMDs? Regardless of the source, if they had WMDs, Bush is owed an apology, lol.

 

You're a typing contradiction.

 

theres no dispute they had them at one point.....the Dueffler report stated they were destroyed after the 1st gulf war

 

no youre confused, having something today, is not proof you have it in 20 years.

 

....we have the weapons now. That's new information. I'd say.

 

Lol. I'm confused?

"There were none found in Iraq. Did you miss that part? Furthermore the jaw-dropping hypocrisy of Bush's continual aggressiveness in stating that the invasion was, in part, to rid Saddam of the very WMD America, Germany, Britain and others supplied him with, seems to have escaped you."

In one statement they were found and not there at the same time. Contradiction. Nothing said about 20 years ago.

You're so used to using the same argument that you're willing to use it subconsciously even if it's in contradiction with other views of yours.

 

Lol. I'm confused?

"There were none found in Iraq. Did you miss that part? Furthermore the jaw-dropping hypocrisy of Bush's continual aggressiveness in stating that the invasion was, in part, to rid Saddam of the very WMD America, Germany, Britain and others supplied him with, seems to have escaped you."

In one statement they were found and not there at the same time. Contradiction. Nothing said about 20 years ago.

You're so used to using the same argument that you're willing to use it subconsciously even if it's in contradiction with other views of yours.

 

it does not say they were found....it says we knew they had them....which we knew because he used them on the kurds....LIKE 20 YEARS BEFORE BUSH SAID THEY STILL AHD THEM.

try to follow along

 

we do? is there another thread I missed?

 

Oh.you three used to hangout?

SO Saddam "hated" the only other BAATHIST leader in the world? Right...

 

I have to agree with you, my udnerstanding was being baathings they had something of a relationship, but im not an expert.

 

Obviously not literally. We know that they're in Syria now. This is what you do, right? You attack people on stuff like that because you can't go head to head on the issue? As to your other post, I am following along. I posted the thread. I've followed along for six years and there's no evidence that I'm wrong. I still have seen nothing to refute the evidence that Saddam moved these chemical weapons into Syria in an attempt to avoid answering to accusation regarding the WMDs.

 

no, we know Syria has WMD, we dont know (in fact we have info that contradicts) if they were Saddams.

pointing out illogical conclusions and 6 year old claims is not attacking people. argue the facts, and not illogical conclusions (like it was there once, it must be there now!)

agree, there is not concrete evidence of what DIDNT happen.

btw, do you have evidence he didnt put them on a rocket and send them to mars?

 

So did Hitler and Stalin.

So what happened to the WMD we knew he had but were never accounted for? Such as

"
A senior Bush administration official told Fox News that the sarin gas shell is the second chemical weapon discovered recently.
Two weeks ago, U.S. military units discovered mustard gas that was used as part of an IED. Tests conducted by the Iraqi Survey Group (search) — a U.S. organization searching for weapons of mass destruction — and others concluded the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective."
They believe the mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles for which former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein failed to account when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to then account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas. That, combined with the shells, totaled about 80 tons of unaccounted for mustard gas."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

 

On what grounds and by what means were we going to stop Saddam from producing WMD during the Reagan years, are you stating here that you would have supported an invasion and his removal then? And OF COURSE we didn't want Iraq to lose the war with Iran just as we didn't want Iran to lose. We supported both sides through various channels in order to bring the war to a standstill with neither side winning.

But glad you acknowledge that pesticides are the basic precursor to advanced nerve gases, they are even highly toxic in their own right when highly concentrated. So what was Saddam going to do with the several cache's of highly concentrated organophosphates we discovered in underground camouflaged bunkers next to his munitions dumps where we found new chemical artillery shells also hidden from inspectors and never declared?

No WMD, not a WMD threat.................liberal myth.

 

GW: The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there.

 

David Kay who headed up The Iraq Survey Group at the time stated that large convoys of trucks went from Iraq into Syria.....just a couple months before the invasion of Iraq. He admitted no one knew what was inside those large trucks. Now, you can believe Iraq was sending Syria a large supply of cheesecakes or something....but I think most of us know that he was trying to get rid of the evidence.

On January 17th, according to Italian sources, Saddam Hussein signed a secret agreement with Syria. Iraq would send three CDs of formulas and technical information about weapons including nuclear explosions; 3 test-tubes full of anthrax and botulinum spores; and detailed analysis of tests carried out with these weapons on people to Syria, in exchange for Syria harboring Iraqi scientists, technicians and their information. By the end of February, three Iraqi microbiologists and a small group of technicians would be at safety in Syria, and a top nuclear physicist and his team soon arrived in early March. [7]

Former head of the Iraq Survey Group, David Kay, has confirmed that Saddam Hussein sent convoys to Syria full of "Iraqi equipment" that could not be identified, and that they could possibly have had weapons of mass destruction. He confirmed that senior Iraqi scientific and military officials who would have access to technical documentation and knowledge of the programs fled to Syria immediately before and during the war. [8] According to intelligence gathering, the major transfer of WMD goods from Iraq to Syria and Lebanon occurred between January and March of 2003. However, the first shipments occurred even before then. In December of 2002, Israel claimed that Syria was hiding Iraqi mobile biological weapons labs, chemical and biological components and munitions. [9] The shipments were reportedly negotiated between Bashar Assad's younger brother, Maher, and Saddam Hussein. Following their meeting, Syria agreed to harbor WMDs and officials should inspections begin again. [10]

http://www.globalpolitician.com/2232-syria

 

lol 2004? really?

 

So, let me see if I have your wild-ass story straight here. A petty dictator who knows that a bat-crap-crazy enemy is about to invade for no good reason is going to move all of the stuff that would give him the means to resist to the territory of a mortal enemy.

Yup. Makes perfect sense after three fingers of bourbon.[/QUOTE] So you think that Saddam and his sons were rational thinkers?? It takes more than two fingers of bourbon to come to that decision..



Saddam made several decision - in your opinion - that seemed less than rational to me. He could have stopped our actions by proving that he had no WMDs. He believed the Russians when they told him that we would not invade even when Hillary and most of the far left supported our military actions. Hell, Saddam thought that he could take Kuwait and sell the oil to us.

Keep drinking and thinking that Saddam would need to be drunk to do crazy things. I admit that Saddam did like to get drunk and watch rape videos and torture videos but I blame that of his insanity.[/QUOTE]


**************************************
However Sadamm did just that.He bribed certain UN officials with the exposed
compromised - Oil for Food - program offering oil vouchers as graft for favorable
votes on the UN Security Council for Sanctions.Saddam was certainly cocky,right up
til George Bush called his bluff.Bush going on World TV and giving Saddam 48 hrs. to
give himself up or face the consequence of Iraqi Freedom.
Don't forget Dan Rather braved a tete-a-tete with Saddam at one of his
Presidential offices with a Live TV feed.Saddam acting like he's got the world knocked.
Seemed TOO relaxed.

 

Yes, the ready to go ones, what happened to them? They were documented by UNSCOM and never accounted for.

"
U.N. weapons inspectors
U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998 after disagreements with the Saddam government. They re-entered Baghdad in November 2002 and reported limited but unsatisfactory cooperation from Saddam Hussein's regime. In March 2003, the United States, Great Britain and Spain announced the end of the diplomatic process and the beginning of military action to respond to what they said was Iraq's continued defiance of the international community.
According to inspectors, the three-months of inspections produced no solid evidence of chemical or biological weapons though some banned materials were found. However, the United States maintained that it had intelligence that proved Iraq harbored such weapons.
According to State Department documents, Iraq has not accounted for 17,000 liters of anthrax; 19,000 liters of botulinin toxin; 1.5 tons VX nerve gas; 1,000 tons of mustard gas; and 30,000 delivery systems, which include artillery shells and missile warheads. The document says the numbers are based on U.N. estimates.
A recent poll suggests a majority of Americans support the war even if U.S. forces do not find weapons of mass destruction. The Washington Post -ABC News poll of 511 adults around the country showed that more than 69 percent thought the war is justified even if the United States fails to turn up biological or chemical weapons. That's up from 53 percent in a survey taken the day after the war started."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june03/wmd_4-7.html




And then of course we found all the proscribed materials to produce new ones hidden from the inspectors. For the most grave concern was not the weapons that UNSCOM said he had and had not been accounted for, it was the fact that he would always be a threat and that he would develope even more deadly WMD and more ways to deliver them including working with terrorist groups to attack western states, their mutual enemy.

 

How moral was it to invade after we sold him the chemicals; and had an Ivy League MBA run massive federal budget deficits instead of make more money for our Republic with massive federal budget surpluses, while increasing government outlays and wasting our exorbitantly expensive superpower on the specific welfare of his "base" instead of the general welfare of the United States?

We already know the wealthiest can make more money with their wealth simply by being more faithful to a capitalist maxim than to their republic.

 

about 5 months ago.

According to Obama, we shot 115 tomahawk cruise missiles into Libya to start off the invasion as a support role......

 

They bought chemicals on the open market, under what authority did we have to stop him?

Bush43 ran massive deficits? The worst deficit during the recession was $400 billion, Obama has been running them three times that. After the recession ended and the tax cuts took effect Bush and the Republicans lowered the deficit to $161 billion, then Obama and the Democrats took control of the budget and increased them TEN TIMES that amount.

So you dare to complain about Bush deficits?

And we can be assured that you are sending the government half your money every week so prove how faithful you are to your republic?