NY Times Finally Covers WMDs in Iraq.

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
No. They weren't. We always knew Saddam had basic chemical weapons with basic artillery delivery methods post 91. Hell, we knew he used them on his own folks.

This is not what was the focus of 2003, which was nuclear weapons and higher grade chemical weapons and missile based delivery systems. Which did not exist.

President Bush knew about this stuff in2004. If it was what we were looking for, don't you think they would have let the world know?

Lonesome Nutjob, duped again.
 
" Basic chemical weapons...."

I wouldn't downplay a chemical weapon especially thousands of them. Its not just the death affect, but the alarm and panic it would cause on the civilian population say at 2:30 am in a sleeping city.
 
Re-writting history and then calling you a "revisionist," the liberal way for over ninety years!

Moderator, when does the hateful name calling stop? ;~)



No. They weren't. We always knew Saddam had basic chemical weapons with basic artillery delivery methods post 91. Hell, we knew he used them on his own folks.

This is not what was the focus of 2003, which was nuclear weapons and higher grade chemical weapons and missile based delivery systems. Which did not exist.

President Bush knew about this stuff in2004. If it was what we were looking for, don't you think they would have let the world know?

Lonesome Nutjob, duped again.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Moderator, when does the hateful name calling stop? ;~)


Be thankful "Nutjob" was as insulting as Mr. Young chose to get...that time.

'Doesn't begin to hold a candle to this:

...you guys west of 30w caused it. You really are a bunch of fuckwits.

Just think of the gems Mr.s Morton and Young might come up with were they to meet in a bar someplace and collaborate over a few 'toddies'.


Anyway - back to the OP re: the NYT...
 
Last edited:

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
Re-writting history and then calling you a "revisionist," the liberal way for over ninety years!

Moderator, when does the hateful name calling stop? ;~)

Timeline, learn it.

If this was really the stuff President Bush and co. were looking for, and they fucking found it in 2004, why did they not disclose it?

Answer: because it wasn't the missle based nerve and nuclear weapons they had sold us on at the start of the war.

Bob, are you fweeings hurt?
 

Pat

Supporter
Having been somewhat "personally involved" as a reminder:

After the first Gulf War in 1991 Iraq was obliged by the U.N. to get rid of ALL its biological and toxic weapons. This Security Council Resolution also demanded the restoration of Kuwait’s independence and the implementation of sanctions against Iraq. The United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) performed inspections in Iraq to make sure that the conditions of the peace agreement that followed the first Gulf War were carried out. The weapons inspectors were thrown out of Iraq in December of 1998, which lead to Operation Desert Fox, a three-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets. Numerous violations of the 1991 cease fire, murder of Iraqi Kurds, and frequent violation of the no fly zone set Iraq on a collision course with the United States with or without the specter of WMD.

As a result, there was an ultimatum given Mr. Hussein by the U.S. president to allow inspectors and comply with the 1991 peace agreements. It was refused as it was believed to be a bluff. Unlike the current administration, Mr. Bush was not in the habit of drawing imaginary "red lines".
The coalition mission was to strike military and security targets in Iraq that contributed to the country’s ability to produce, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction. The disagreement concerned the U.N. inspectors’ access to various ‘sensitive sites’ and presidential palaces. The weapons inspectors were not let back into Iraq until November 2002, after the U.N. Security Council had passed its resolution 1441.
Since the time of Mr. Clinton's presidency, the official U.S. policy was to remove Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. After September 11th, U.S. focus was first and foremost to secure the physical well -being of the American people. Since Iraq was believed to possess WMD, the removal of these became the top priority for the U.S. government. By and large, the United States was operating with two simultaneous goals: the elimination of both the (alleged) WMD and the Iraqi Regime. The former goal proved elusive the latter was achieved.
If anyone is interested in serious study of the subject, read Jakobsen, Tor Georg & Jo Jakobsen (2009) “The Game: A Rational Actor Approach to the US-led Invasion of Iraq, 2003” Strategic Analysis, 33(5) 664–674.

It might just be more useful than the name calling.
 

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
In my opinion the main screw-up GEE-DUB made was to send troops into Iraq. With the technology we have today (and probably had back then--having had a father who was in the military I know that the military has historically been at the forefront of technology development if there is a military application) they could most assuredly have targeted the suspected launch or storage sites with adequate accuracy to have at least disabled the machinery, if not destroyed it, without risking foot soldiers' lives.

I hang around people of both persuasions (right and left) and my perception is that even the left is not so pissed about GEE-DUB having invaded Iraq (although many of them have what I believe are reasonable suspicions that he did so to finish the job his father was criticized for not finishing), they are just pissed that he sent so many "boots" over there and allowed the carnage to continue for way too long. The "long-range" military option should have (IMHO, guys, IMHO!!) gotten more consideration and usage before we dedicated our soldiers' lives to a war that NOBODY will ever win.

So...we got to watch Saddam Hussein swing...was it all worth it all? IMHO (again) that was the only real thing that benefited the world to come from all those years, all the $$, and all the lives squandered in that hell-hole called IRAQ.

In the end...if there ever is one...perhaps our country did benefit from something else. Every politician knows that when their approval ratings are low that they can bring about a change by "Wagging the dog"...engage in some armed conflict, somewhere, to stimulate the economy because war supplies are needed and those supplies can be made right here in the USA. Is that what GEE-DUB did? Many of us, both right and left wing, think so...and think the hard-learned lessons from the Vietnam "Police Action" were ignored in favor of GEE-DUB's quest to redeem his father's legacy.

Cheers!

Doug
 

Steve

Supporter
Doug, winning the war in Iraq proved pretty easy. Winning the peace is where George Bush faltered. He and his advisors had a poor understanding of the internal conflicts and the chaos that would happen when Saddam was deposed. A great documentary is "No End In Sight". It's presurge but outlines the errors in judgement very well from the mouths of those deeply involved such as Richard Armitage.
 

marc

Lifetime Supporter
Excuse me, how many people died from the gassing shells used during the IRAN IRAQ war? Why does that not qualify as a WMD? Our chemical or biologic weapons are considered WMDs. This is the point of the rally cry "Bush lied"... The fact that these had been found not just now but back in the actual wartime is news manipulating the facts. So really, Who lied???
 

Keith

Moderator
. Is that what GEE-DUB did? Many of us, both right and left wing, think so...and think the hard-learned lessons from the Vietnam "Police Action" were ignored in favor of GEE-DUB's quest to redeem his father's legacy.

Cheers!

Doug

Desperately trying NOT to be picky (I am noted for it) I believe it was Korea that was generally referred to as a 'Police Action.' I have never heard the term applied to Vietnam...
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
Desperately trying NOT to be picky (I am noted for it) I believe it was Korea that was generally referred to as a 'Police Action.' I have never heard the term applied to Vietnam...

Sometimes I truly love you Keith. In a totally manly way of course.:thumbsup:
 
Back
Top