The new WRONG expansionism - we do NOT need to "intervene" in Libya's troubles

Beretta92FSLady said:

I'll bite.

Can you link me to where after we invaded Iraq (Iraqi Freedom, or whatever they called it that week) some chemical weapons were found?

Thank you.

Click to expand...

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Pentagon/dodscud.htm

This is probably the best source for information following the first gulf war. Basically it boils down to a) we thought Saddam had launched Chemically Weaponized SCUD Missiles at the coalition and at Kuwait during Operation Desert Storm. This proved to be false. Although he did launch SCUDS, none of them had chemical warheads. and b) after operation Desert Storm we found approx 50 SCUD missiles that were outfitted for chemical warfare (sarin and VX nerve gas as well as anthrax and some other nasty suprises.)

So, in 1991 he definately HAD them, he just didn't use 'em.

Fast forward to 2001. Saddam claimed that he still had them and refused to let inspectors in. All of our intelligence services, as well as our allies intel services thought he had them.

We invaded, and I personally have knowledge that WMD components were found, although they weren't put together at the time. BUT for all those nay-sayers who don't want to take my word for it, here is a NY Times article confirming that WMD (chemical weapon) material was indeed found in Iraq.

Although this wasn't highly publicized for whatever reason, similar articles did appear in other newspapers, and I think it even found a 10 second blip on the news a while back. When we don't find WMD's they talk about it forever and report it on every channel. Find some WMD's and everyone has moved on to other things. Go fig.

Anyway, heres the NYTimes link. Enjoy: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/us_did_find_iraq_wmd_AYiLgNbw7pDf7AZ3RO9qnM

END_THE_FED said:

As much as I dislike/disagree with Obama, I have to say that he has come nowhere near earning that title.

Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, who do you think has been worse so far?

frommycolddeadhands said:

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Pentagon/dodscud.htm

This is probably the best source for information following the first gulf war. Basically it boils down to a) we thought Saddam had launched Chemically Weaponized SCUD Missiles at the coalition and at Kuwait during Operation Desert Storm. This proved to be false. Although he did launch SCUDS, none of them had chemical warheads. and b) after operation Desert Storm we found approx 50 SCUD missiles that were outfitted for chemical warfare (sarin and VX nerve gas as well as anthrax and some other nasty suprises.)

So, in 1991 he definately HAD them, he just didn't use 'em.

Fast forward to 2001. Saddam claimed that he still had them and refused to let inspectors in. All of our intelligence services, as well as our allies intel services thought he had them.

We invaded, and I personally have knowledge that WMD components were found, although they weren't put together at the time. BUT for all those nay-sayers who don't want to take my word for it, here is a NY Times article confirming that WMD (chemical weapon) material was indeed found in Iraq.

Although this wasn't highly publicized for whatever reason, similar articles did appear in other newspapers, and I think it even found a 10 second blip on the news a while back. When we don't find WMD's they talk about it forever and report it on every channel. Find some WMD's and everyone has moved on to other things. Go fig.

Anyway, heres the NYTimes link. Enjoy: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/us_did_find_iraq_wmd_AYiLgNbw7pDf7AZ3RO9qnM

Click to expand...

Let's not forget that Saddam actually gassed the Kurds.

Furthermore, as a OIF I vet, I confirm what you have said. There were indeed components for delivery systems etc. that were found in great working order. I have a CD our commander made after the invasion, and after we redeployed back to garrison, that has 2500 pictures on it. Let me see if I can track it down.

On it, it has a couple pictures of chemical pod attachments to guided missiles found at Talil Airfield and BIAP.

In fact, the munitions stockpiles we had found looked to be in awesome shape, and very well kept.

Hell the only thing that appeared to be run down as hell was BIAP itself.

If you ever got the opportunity to visit the airstrip, there were several aircraft outside of the terminals that we went exploring in on a patrol. The Antonov on the flight line shocked me with English and Russian on all major control panels.

I just thought it was interesting.

frommycolddeadhands said:

Just out of curiosity, who do you think has been worse so far?

Click to expand...

It would be hard to give any one president the title of "worst", but in no particular order I would say that Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and Lincoln were all worse than Obama.

slowfiveoh said:

Let's not forget that Saddam actually gassed the Kurds.

Furthermore, as a OIF I vet, I confirm what you have said. There were indeed components for delivery systems etc. that were found in great working order. I have a CD our commander made after the invasion, and after we redeployed back to garrison, that has 2500 pictures on it. Let me see if I can track it down.

On it, it has a couple pictures of chemical pod attachments to guided missiles found at Talil Airfield and BIAP.

In fact, the munitions stockpiles we had found looked to be in awesome shape, and very well kept.

Hell the only thing that appeared to be run down as hell was BIAP itself.

If you ever got the opportunity to visit the airstrip, there were several aircraft outside of the terminals that we went exploring in on a patrol. The Antonov on the flight line shocked me with English and Russian on all major control panels.

I just thought it was interesting.

Click to expand...

Yup. I've seen plenty of photos of munitions that have been found/recovered/destroyed. The 'no WMD's in Iraq' is one of those lies that just won't die. Pet peeve of mine.

KansasMustang said:

And exactly where do you find that it was LIES? I know for FACT that Hussein HAD chemical weapons at the time of Desert Storm. What makes you think he didn't have them afterward? You've been suckin' on the kool-aid way to hard.

Click to expand...

Pictures or it didn't happen.

END_THE_FED said:

It would be hard to give any one president the title of "worst", but in no particular order I would say that Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and Lincoln were all worse than Obama.

Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly with that list.

END_THE_FED said:

It would be hard to give any one president the title of "worst", but in no particular order I would say that Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and Lincoln were all worse than Obama.

Click to expand...

I'm definately not a fan of Wilson. I really don't know much about FDR to be honest.

Lincoln I used to despise, but after doing some research on the reformation period after the civil war I believe we would have been a lot better off had Lincoln lived. Johnson screwed things up for about 100 years with his racist junk. The whole war might as well have been in vain.

Johnson might be a good contestant for worst president ever.

At the moment I still think Obama wins the title for me. My own opinion, you're more than welcome to yours.

HandyHamlet said:

Pictures or it didn't happen.

Click to expand...

I posted two reliable links for your reading pleasure.

You can find many more with a simple google search. And yes, you can probably find some photos of said weapons either on a news cite or on a personal website of veterans who where there.

If you know anyone who served in Desert Storm or OIF/OEF maybe you can just ask them.

If you go on youtube maybe you can actually find the old CNN video of SCUD attacks in Kuwait.

Or you can bury your head in the sand, ignore everything that we've said- and pretend that just because nobody personally air mailed you pictures that twenty years of history never happened. Up to you. Have a nice day.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were joking when you posted that NY Post link. Thanks for the laugh though!


Liar liar pants on fire...

Bush, Cheney admit Iraq had no WMD, take new tack

They cite oil-for-food scam as justification for invasion

By Scott Lindlaw
ASSOCIATED PRESS

October 8, 2004

WASHINGTON – President Bush and his vice president conceded yesterday in the clearest terms yet that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, trying to shift the Iraq war debate to a new issue – whether the invasion was justified because Hussein was abusing a U.N. oil-for-food program.

Click to expand...

HandyHamlet said:

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were joking when you posted that NY Post link. Thanks for the laugh though!


Liar liar pants on fire...

Click to expand...

Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq
Thursday, June 22, 2006


WASHINGTON — The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.

"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.

Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."

Full article here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

frommycolddeadhands said:

Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq
Thursday, June 22, 2006


WASHINGTON — The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.

"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.

Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."

Full article here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

Click to expand...

LOL. You're a funny guy. You believe anything you read, don't you? Santorum is about the farthest thing you can possibly get from a credible source.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13480264/ns/world_news-mideast/n_africa/

WASHINGTON — Senior U.S. intelligence officials said Thursday they have no evidence that Iraq produced chemical weapons after the 1991 Gulf War, despite recent reports from media outlets and Republican lawmakers.
Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan on Wednesday pointed to a newly declassified report that says coalition forces have found 500 munitions in Iraq that contained degraded sarin or mustard nerve agents.
...
But defense officials said Thursday that the weapons were not considered likely to be dangerous because of their age, which they determined to be pre-1991.

Pentagon officials told NBC News that the munitions are the same kind of ordnance the U.S. military has been gathering in Iraq for the past several years, and "not the WMD we were looking for when we went in this time."
...
"We were able to determine that [the missile] is, in fact, degraded and ... is consistent with what we would expect from finding a munition that was dated back to pre-Gulf War," an intelligence official told NBC.

Click to expand...

marshaul said:

LOL. You're a funny guy. You believe anything you read, don't you? Santorum is about the farthest thing you can possibly get from a credible source.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13480264/ns/world_news-mideast/n_africa/

Click to expand...

Both sources state that there were chemical weapons found in Iraq. The only point MSNBC is making is that the weapons were pre-1991. Big whup. And then they go on to say that those weren't the weapons we went in to Iraq looking for.

Ok, so Saddam didn't have a nuke parked in his driveway. I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying that there was chemical ordinance in Iraq. Some of it was small potatoes, and some of it was components scattered in different locations, but still it was there. Hence all the time us lucky military members get to spend playing in our MOPP gear.

Saying that we didn't find anything in Iraq is still a well circulated lie.

frommycolddeadhands said:

Both sources state that there were chemical weapons found in Iraq. The only point MSNBC is making is that the weapons were pre-1991. Big whup. And then they go on to say that those weren't the weapons we went in to Iraq looking for.

Click to expand...

Right. Which was the whole point.

Nobody doubted Saddam made chemical weapons pre-1991. But, do you remember that little Desert Storm thing?

The remnants of those ancient weapons were of no consequence, and had nothing to do with the stated reasons for going to war. The stated reason was that Saddam was building new WMDs. You were alive then, yes?

I'm surprised I'm even having to type anything here. This debate is truly silly.

This is what started the whole thing.

Beretta92FSLady said:

I'll bite.

Can you link me to where after we invaded Iraq (Iraqi Freedom, or whatever they called it that week) some chemical weapons were found?

Thank you.

Click to expand...

So I posted showing where chemical weapons were found.

Then everyone wants to jump my case because they weren't the right kind of weapons, or they were weapons leftover from Operation Desert Storm. Whatever. He asked a question, I took time out of my day to provide some info.

If you disagreed with the invasion of Iraq, that's fine. More power to you. Everyone's entitled to an opinion. I wasn't supporting or denouncing it. I am simply saying that chemical weapons were found in Iraq.

And yes, I am familiar with desert storm and the SCUD missile threat and the gassing of the Kurds

And I am also a vet of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

frommycolddeadhands said:

Just out of curiosity, who do you think has been worse so far?

Click to expand...

lbj--the blood of 57,000 young men on his hands.

The peanut farmer, an idiot who almost destroyed our economy 100% single handed--while destroying our military 80%.

The messiah is a strong 3rd.

Gunslinger said:

lbj--the blood of 57,000 young men on his hands.

Click to expand...

Definitely. But, also, Nixon oversaw the war's second-most-deadly year (1969), after promising a quick end to the war ("with honor"). It took him that entire first term to actually live up to his promise, after spending all of that term demanding that the "silent majority" support the war he had promised them he would end. Some of this blood is on Nixon's hands as well. Approximately 1/5 of it.

And that's not even mentioning Nixon's odious declaration of the utterly heinous "War on Drugs", which is today responsible for an incredible amount of our country's problems today.

LBJ's remains the greater wrong, but I'd say that Nixon is also up there with Obama, personally.

Also, I have a deep and abiding hatred for Reagan. Reagan gets most of the credit for overseeing the paramilitarization of our police, in the name of the war on drugs (and because Reagan had a childish and pathological hatred for hippies).

Not only that, but (and I consider this to be truly one of the greatest evils of the modern age), Reagan deserves total credit for singlehandedly discrediting liberal/classical economics, thanks to his insistence (utterly unsupported by action, aside from pretending to utilize the anyway crypto-statist and wannabe-freemarketeer Milton Friedman as his economic "advisor") on his being and advocate of "free markets". His legacy shows that he was anything but a believer in free markets, nor a person possessing an understanding of their nature and merits.

Honestly, Reagan's legacy today is one of the biggest boons to Keynesians, and the biggest contributor to the rampant misunderstanding of what free markets and liberal/classical economics really represent.

So he gets on my list, too.

At least, that's how I see it.

Regan also gave us Iran -Contra and amnesty for the illegal Cubans immigrants. Obama just wants affordable health care for most Americans and he added the costs of our 2 wars to the budget, that commie, marxist, muslim!

This just in!
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/15/6273767-clinton-no-us-support-for-libya-no-fly-zone-

beebobby said:

Regan also gave us Iran -Contra and amnesty for the illegal Cubans immigrants. Obama just wants affordable health care for most Americans and he added the costs of our 2 wars to the budget, that commie, marxist, muslim!

This just in!
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/15/6273767-clinton-no-us-support-for-libya-no-fly-zone-

Click to expand...

There were about 100 other ways he could have addressed the lack of healthcare for the various affected classes.

Leaping immediately to outright ownership of the nations healthcare system was not the appropriate measure.

The health care system is still run by private insurance companies, no govt. control there.