Well, duh...of COURSE Iraq's foreign minister and head of intelligence were going to claim there were no WMD's. They were under UN sanctions at the time, and more were being threatened.
Why would anyone in their right mind take their word for it?
New evidence: CIA and MI6 were told before invasion that Iraq had no active WMD
File this under "I'm so shocked I could just shit!". Or not.
Not meaning to beat this horse again. But for those that are still hanging on to any fantasy that the leaders of two of the most powerful countries the world has known were still justified in killing tens of thousands of Iraqis along with thousands of their own citizens, you really need to stop drinking the kool-aid.
Forgot the link:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/...-before-invasion-that-iraq-had-no-active-wmd/
Old news is old.
In other news, we have a new source of oil in the middle east.
This means that the undeclared items found by Hans Blix are considered WMDs by the United States.
Ted Koppel. In the mid-1980s, the Reagan administration, desperate to get American hostages back from Lebanon, authorized the sale of U.S. weapons to Iran, and then took the profits and used them to support the Contras in Nicaragua.
That came to be known as the Iran/Contra scandal.
It was, in more ways than one, one of the great diversions of the 1980s.
In reality, throughout the ’80s and into the ’90s, U.S. assistance to Saddam Hussein and the government of Iraq dwarfed anything this country did for Iran.
As we’ve been reporting for more than a year now, the Reagan/Bush administrations permitted — and frequently encouraged — the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq.
What we didn’t fully understand was how those programs fit into the larger Washington/Baghdad alliance against Iran.
First: Think about it for a second. Strategically and militarily, it made no sense for Saddam to transfer his weapons of mass destruction to Syria. Saddam worked on acquiring WMD for a reason: to stave off an invasion and hold on to power.
Just listen to a defeated Saddam for a second. In a post-invasion interview, Saddam admitted that he had been bluffing about his WMD. This is actually case-closed for the conspiracy theories about his weapons transfers.
Saddam Hussein told an FBI interviewer before he was hanged that he allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction because he was worried about appearing weak to Iran, according to declassified accounts of the interviews released yesterday. The former Iraqi president also denounced Osama bin Laden as "a zealot" and said he had no dealings with al-Qaeda.
Well, duh...of COURSE Iraq's foreign minister and head of intelligence were going to claim there were no WMD's. They were under UN sanctions at the time, and more were being threatened.
Why would anyone in their right mind take their word for it?
then why did the CIA pay him 100K. are you saying you are smarter than the CIA?
How the US sent $12bn in cash to Iraq. And watched it vanish
Special flights brought in tonnes of banknotes which disappeared into the war zone
And yet those complicit in leading the US to war on these false pretenses are not held accountable.
I bail on threads when they bore me.
Before you indulge his self-serving spin, you may be interested in Blix's full statement:True but every time I follow a link that says Iraq had WMDs I never see that they had Nuclear weapons or a Nuclear weapons program. Invariably they fall under chemical weapons.
Yet the Administration more than once mentioned like "mushroom cloud." The clear implication was that Iraq did have a nuclear weapons program.
They still haven't found those yet. ...
Note how he dishonestly omits the critical fact that these warheads were filled with water, NOT any sort of chemical or biological agent. Not only were they not the nukes the Bush administration kept insinuating Iraq had, they weren't even real "WMDs". They were proscribed components, to be sure, but in no way matched the war mongering BS out of the White House.88. The discovery by UNMOVIC of twelve 122 mm chemical warheads and rocket motors in mid-January 2003 at the Ukhaidar ammunitions depot led to an Iraqi declaration regarding four additional warheads at Al Taji a few days later. X-ray examination of those warheads at both locations showed that some contained an unknown liquid. Operations were undertaken to drill safely into the warheads and extract samples of the liquid contents for subsequent analysis. The contents were determined to be primarily water.
In fairness, getting pwned is a daily occurrence for him. I'm sure it does get boring.You sure get bored a lot.
That sucks but at least our troops were greeted with flowers and candy and the war was fast and cheap.
Proof of "we have a new source of oil in the middle east".
Russia has secured most of the oil in Iraq not the U.S. if you look at articles in the Gas thread.
Before you indulge his self-serving spin, you may be interested in Blix's full statement:
Yes, Iraq had significant stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in the 80s and 90s. We destroyed many in our first Iraq war, the UN inspectors under Scott Ritter destroyed many more, and we then bombed much of their remaining stockpiles in 1998. Iraq itself then destroyed most the last remnants, leaving them with no material "WMD" capabilities or stock. The UN team led by Blix was effectively confirming this before the Bush administration decided that starting a war was more important than truth. Iraq never had nuclear capabilities.I don't doubt that at one time there were chemical weapons in Iraq. If I wanted to be cynical and half-facetious I'd say that the U.S. knows that Iraq had them in the 80's because we have copies of the sales invoices for some of the chemical weapons Saddam Hussein had.
When I mentioned the links I followed, they're pretty much right leaning "news" sites. And they mention chemical weapons, never Nuclear WMDs I guess they have some shame and won't tell an outright lie like some people have.
Because I got accused of everything under the sun including being a racist just because I didn't think Sproul was as bad as Acorn. Your debating skills are that of a 3 year old. I bail on threads when they bore me. Speaking of debating like a 3 year old, why is it the GOP's fault to admint Bush lied?
Lies about WMD snipped
LOL...banned again already....that must be another record for our troll. Cybrtroll must have the most bans ever int he history of P&N for lying and trolling.
Note how he dishonestly omits the critical fact that these warheads were filled with water, NOT any sort of chemical or biological agent. Not only were they not the nukes the Bush administration kept insinuating Iraq had, they weren't even real "WMDs". They were proscribed components, to be sure, but in no way matched the war mongering BS out of the White House.
Yes, which is what I addressed with, "They were proscribed components, to be sure, but in no way matched the war mongering BS out of the White House." It was an infraction, but a minor one that in no way justified an invasion that cost hundreds of thousands of lives and somewhere over a trillion dollars. It was also nothing at all like what the Bush administration asserted Iraq had.To be fair - the US does not base its classification on the current contents of the warheads but their ability to potentially carry nuclear/biological/chemical contents thus a warhead capable of carrying a nuclear warhead is a WMD regardless of whether there is a nuclear warhead in it or water.
No, you bail on threads when you get called out on your lies. Several people posted reasons why you where full of shit. Your rebuttal was to put your fingers in your ears and ignore us. Then you bailed on the thread. Just like all the other trolls here....when forced to defend themselves against facts proving you wrong, you bail and go troll another thread.
You never once posted any reasoning to support your BS. Shocking.
Yes, which is what I addressed with, "They were proscribed components, to be sure, but in no way matched the war mongering BS out of the White House." It was an infraction, but a minor one that in no way justified an invasion that cost hundreds of thousands of lives and somewhere over a trillion dollars. It was also nothing at all like what the Bush administration asserted Iraq had.
US Law says weapons which were designed to carry nuclear, chemical, or biological agents are considered WMDs, regardless of them having a payload or not:
We'll have to agree to disagree. IMO, it was lying through omission. He was intentionally trying to mislead by insinuating Iraq had active WMD warheads. That is simply not the case, as quoting Blix's full statement would have shown. They were passive components filled with water, violating the letter of U.S. law (not sure about U.N. definitions), but not even close to matching the Bush administration rhetoric about "massive stockpiles", "mushroom cloud", mobile weapons labs, and a fleet of UAVs poised to strike America's heartland.I agree with you that it doesn't match the fearmongering but I don't see how the post was dishonest given that it matches the US definition and that it was noted here:
You may disagree with the definition of WMD but I don't think its dishonest to exclude something that does not pertain to the US definition of a WMD when discussing the US claimed presence of WMDs