Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » No WMDs in Iraq? Think again....and it's important now because of ISIS....

No WMDs in Iraq? Think again....and it's important now because of ISIS....

+7
Hospital Bob
ZVUGKTUBM
KarlRove
boards of FL
Sal
gatorfan
Joanimaroni
11 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 2]

Guest


Guest

I haven't been for any of our military interventions... but anyone with any objectivity knows that if saddam had simply complied with the un inspections which were the conditions to which he had agreed... he would likely still be in power.

You leftist asshats need to play by the same rules you create. You can't have it both ways.

Sal

Sal

Nothing will rally the American people and put them on a war footing like saying, "We sold this horrible dictator a bunch of really bad munitions and he buried a pile of them in the desert where they're now moldering, so we gotta go get them."

Y'all are gonna need bigger American flag lapel pins.

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

boards of FL wrote:
Joanimaroni wrote:
Sal wrote:
Joanimaroni wrote:It is also funny how forum members, for years have denied and insisted Saddam did not have WMD.

No, we denied and insisted that Saddam did not have mobile chemical weapon labs, an active nuclear weapons program, nor the capacity to produce a mushroom cloud over a major American city ...

... because he didn't.

If Bush wanted to make the case for war over some munitions we sold Saddam in the 80s that he buried in the desert, he should have made that case.

Oh I see......When you said no weapons of mass destruction, you meant chemical weapon labs...blah blah blah..


United States
Strategic
The most widely used definition of "weapons of mass destruction" is that of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons (NBC) although there is no treaty or customary international law that contains an authoritative definition. Instead, international law has been used with respect to the specific categories of weapons within WMD, and not to WMD as a whole. While nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are regarded as the three major types of WMDs .....some analysts have argued that radiological materials as well as missile technology and delivery systems such as aircraft and ballistic missiles could be labeled as WMDs as well.



Stand next to "Cindy Crawford" and smile, Joani!  (Snaps photo as onlookers chuckle)  Isn't "Cindy Crawford" wonderful?


Silly boy....I suspect your parents didn't want to deal with your temper tantrum if you didn't get your way....so they took you on the "scam" outing. A snotty- nosed 11 year old...sad

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

PkrBum wrote:I haven't been for any of our military interventions... but anyone with any objectivity knows that if saddam had simply complied with the un inspections which were the conditions to which he had agreed... he would likely still be in power.

You leftist asshats need to play by the same rules you create. You can't have it both ways.


Same conditions existed when Clinton bombed Iraq during desert fox.






WEB SERVICES:
CNN/AllPolitics - Storypage, with TIME and Congressional Quarterly

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

KarlRove

KarlRove

Sal wrote:
Joanimaroni wrote:It is also funny how forum members, for years have denied and insisted Saddam did not have WMD.

No, we denied and insisted that Saddam did not have mobile chemical weapon labs, an active nuclear weapons program, nor the capacity to produce a mushroom cloud over a major American city ...

... because he didn't.

If Bush wanted to make the case for war over some munitions we sold Saddam in the 80s that he buried in the desert, he should have made that case.

The second Iraq war was not just WMDs:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a United Nations Security Council resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on 8 November 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284).[1]

Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops during the 1990–1991 invasion and occupation. It also stated that "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."

Sal

Sal

We found buried shells that were harming no one and we let the insurgency use them in roadside bombs while our own bomb-removal soldiers were exposed to blistering agents, and then we covered it up.

And then we let ISIS have them.

The Iraq War just keeps getting better.

Guest


Guest

Bites shells could have been dug up and used had the wrong people gotten ahold of them. Remember all those IEDs created out of 155mm howitzer shells? Yeah imagine what would have happened if those would have been used on a troop concentration ?

Guest


Guest

I worked in and wrote AFis on force protection for multiple bases in the Middle East. The idea that stuff like this could be possibly used in a ventilation system in a barracks or chow hall was a realistic threat.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Pakistan has more WMD's than Saddam had even if Ollie North's CPA is doing the counting.
But nobody is wanting to invade and occupy Pakistan.
It's just as muslim and even more dangerous because it's got the "Big Kahunas" (as bds would say).  The ones that go bang and vaporize whole metropolitan areas.  
It's the biggest safe house for jihadists.  It's one of the biggest breeders of jihadists.  At least as much a host to it as the Taliban was.

And then we have Saddam's Iraq.  So he had some chemical weapons which derived from the ones our government gave him when we were allied with him.
He didn't have no nukes.  He wasn't a home for jihadists.  In fact, all this jihadist shit in Iraq started AFTER he was removed.
We were a lot more secure when Saddam had his boot on Iraq than we are after we lifted it.  That's what you and so many don't want to accept.
Because all ya'll are as party partisan as Sal and his ilk is.

Markle

Markle

Sal wrote:It's incredible that you can't distinguish between invading and occupying countries, as opposed to bombing specific targets.

Don't get me wrong.

I'm for none of the above.

But, there is a difference.

Yes, the invasion worked and we won. Even semi-retired President Obama took credit for the victory and for leaving Iraq twisting in the breeze and now overrun with the most barbaric terrorists of our time.

Now we're launching $1.5 million dollar missiles at $20,000 trucks and empty buildings, ala President Clinton and we are rapidly losing ground.

From what you say, you're just like President Obama, just sit there with your thumb up your...nose.


Markle

Markle

Sal wrote:We found buried shells that were harming no one and we let the insurgency use them in roadside bombs while our own bomb-removal soldiers were exposed to blistering agents, and then we covered it up.

And then we let ISIS have them.

The Iraq War just keeps getting better.

WE didn't let ISIS have them Semi-retired President Obama said the ISIS was the JV and we had nothing to worry about from them. He also said that Iran was such a tiny country they were of no significance.

Yes, the Obama Iraq War just keeps getting better and better.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Markle wrote:

Yes, the invasion worked and we won.


Who is we and what did we win?

Guest


Guest

by Bob Today at 10:57 pm
Markle wrote:
“


Yes, the invasion worked and we won.

”
Who is we and what did we win?
---
I am part of we as I was there.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

PACEDOG#1 wrote:Looks like you got scammed and now are trying to disrupt the thread with innuendo and BS.

Old SIN tactic at work-

S- shift the blame

I- Ignore the facts

N- Name call


It's interesting to note that the majority of chemical weapons Saddam stored had components given to him by the U.S. during the Iran/Iraq war.

And the alleged WMD that prompted so many to go along with Dubya's absolute need for us to invade Iraq wasn't poison gas weapons, but was based on condoleeza's warning of mushroom clouds, etc.

Fact: Iraq was 100 times less a threat to us in 2003 than it is now.

It was a stupid war then and now, and unfortunately, as it now looks, stupid for the future too.

Sal

Sal

Markle wrote:
Yes, the invasion worked and we won.  

Semi-retarded poster Markie has been rolling around in the catnip again.

Guest


Guest

Wordslinger wrote:
PACEDOG#1 wrote:Looks like you got scammed and now are trying to disrupt the thread with innuendo and BS.

Old SIN tactic at work-

S- shift the blame

I- Ignore the facts

N- Name call


It's interesting to note that the majority of chemical weapons Saddam stored had components given to him by the U.S. during the Iran/Iraq war.

And the alleged WMD that prompted so many to go along with Dubya's absolute need for us to invade Iraq wasn't poison gas weapons, but was based on condoleeza's warning of mushroom clouds, etc.

Fact: Iraq was 100 times less a threat to us in 2003 than it is now.

It was a stupid war then and now, and unfortunately, as it now looks, stupid for the future too.

The US, the Brits, the French, and the Russians....let's point the fingers where finger pointing is due.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Guest


Guest

Funny FT, you think helping Egypt, Libya, Syria/Assad (who crosses red lines of Obama), Al Qaeda in Syria who is teamed up with ISIS fighting Assad and wanting to negotiate with Iran is proper foreign policy. Heck, I bet even the Dirka Dirkas don't even know what to expect from him now. Obama's foreign policy is more like the day inside a bipolar/schizophrenic's head.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Guest


Guest

... a nut job like you.

2seaoat



Yes, the invasion worked and we won.

I suppose you post on other forums that the Cubs won the world series last year.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Wordslinger wrote:
PACEDOG#1 wrote:Looks like you got scammed and now are trying to disrupt the thread with innuendo and BS.

Old SIN tactic at work-

S- shift the blame

I- Ignore the facts

N- Name call


It's interesting to note that the majority of chemical weapons Saddam stored had components given to him by the U.S. during the Iran/Iraq war.

And the alleged WMD that prompted so many to go along with Dubya's absolute need for us to invade Iraq wasn't poison gas weapons, but was based on condoleeza's warning of mushroom clouds, etc.

Fact:  Iraq was 100 times less a threat to us in 2003 than it is now.

It was a stupid war then and now, and unfortunately, as it now looks, stupid for the future too.

I think Wordslinger nailed it on this one!

Poster Markle fell short yet again.....

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Floridatexan wrote:

Liked it!

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 2]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » No WMDs in Iraq? Think again....and it's important now because of ISIS....

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum