Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,133 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Let's see how the news media and the talking heads work with this one....

The massive cache of almost 400,000 Iraq war documents released by the WikiLeaks Web site revealed that small amounts of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and continued to surface for years after the 2003 US invasion...
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/internatio ... 7AZ3RO9qnM

another
While the invasion of Iraq didn't find huge stockpiles of new WMDs, it did uncover stockpiles that the UN had demanded destroyed as a condition of the 1991 truce that Saddam Hussein abrogated for twelve years.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... nd_in.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,153 Posts
I've said this for years and people just laugh.

No, we didn't walk into baghdad and see the omega missle from planet of the apes ready to launch, but we did find enough here and there to know that he had some leftovers that he wasn't supposed to have, as well as the capability to potentially produce more.

Did he have amounts that were truly a threat to the US? Maybe, probably not. But to say he didn't have any is just plain incorrect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,148 Posts
Yep. Tried and tried explaining this to people, including many who should/did know better. History will also show that President Bush prevented Israel from nuking Iraq, and possibly Syria and Iran. It ain't rocket science, politically, as the nation-building is working and in progress in Central and South America. It will work in the Middle-east, given time. When socieities learn it's not a good idea to crap where you eat nor murder your own children, those societies advance toward civilization.
 

·
NRA Certified Instructor
Joined
·
5,095 Posts
All of that did come out when they were found. It was just passed off as ("we knew about those ..Where are the ones you are supposed to find?).

So how may WMD's do you need to kill a couple of thouseand people anyway?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,148 Posts
And, somehow, the Bush administration was hornswaggled into using the media term "WMD." The correct, military term is NBC, "nuclear, biological, chemical." That's what they were searching for. WMD is too broad, including LP gas ships and booby-trapped-vans, and whatever else media pundits want it to mean.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
509 Posts
Hock25 said:
And, somehow, the Bush administration was hornswaggled into using the media term "WMD." The correct, military term is NBC, "nuclear, biological, chemical." That's what they were searching for. WMD is too broad, including LP gas ships and booby-trapped-vans, and whatever else media pundits want it to mean.
because WMD sounds very bad and it's a broad term. who wants to let a mad-man have "weapons of mass destruction"? he could create a lot of destruction and kill many americans!

what i find interesting about the debate is how the "entire" intelligence community "knew" iraq possessed "i can kill lots of americans if i could get this into the hands of al-qaeda" quantities... not "i can kill a couple thousand iranians" quantities. when the latter turned out to be true, rather than the former, and you have the president him self saying his major regret during his tenure was "the intelligence failure" in Iraq (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/de ... -interview), along w/ the senate intelligence committee saying the bush administration "misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq" (http://intelligence.senate.gov/press/re ... ?id=298775). for me, it's very hard to look at these revelations as a "told you so" moment.

the major question still remains why, if the cause was so "just", did they have to "oversell" the reasoning only to fail in the delivery and discovery?
 

·
Seasteading Aficionado
Joined
·
44,896 Posts
A guy who worked for one of our subcontractors, EODT http://www.eodt.com/, did a lot for work in Iraq. This is at my previous job.

Just bad butt ex-military types. They loved that crap. He personally told my father and I that we had found some nasty stuff over there, nuclear and chemical, but that he never heard anything about it back here in the States. I didn't know this guy really well, but my father did. He said he was the real deal. I believed him.
 

·
NRA Certified Instructor
Joined
·
5,095 Posts
cherok said:
Hock25 said:
And, somehow, the Bush administration was hornswaggled into using the media term "WMD." The correct, military term is NBC, "nuclear, biological, chemical." That's what they were searching for. WMD is too broad, including LP gas ships and booby-trapped-vans, and whatever else media pundits want it to mean.
because WMD sounds very bad and it's a broad term. who wants to let a mad-man have "weapons of mass destruction"? he could create a lot of destruction and kill many americans!

what i find interesting about the debate is how the "entire" intelligence community "knew" iraq possessed "i can kill lots of americans if i could get this into the hands of al-qaeda" quantities... not "i can kill a couple thousand iranians" quantities. when the latter turned out to be true, rather than the former, and you have the president him self saying his major regret during his tenure was "the intelligence failure" in Iraq (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/de ... -interview), along w/ the senate intelligence committee saying the bush administration "misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq" (http://intelligence.senate.gov/press/re ... ?id=298775). for me, it's very hard to look at these revelations as a "told you so" moment.

the major question still remains why, if the cause was so "just", did they have to "oversell" the reasoning only to fail in the delivery and discovery?
What I find interesting about the debate is the refusal of some to accept that his target was the USA and not some small village in Iran. Just one of his WMD's dumped in the middle of NYC is all it would take and that couple of thousand Iranians becomes a couple of million Americans. I also find it interesting about the debate that even though several warehouses containing WMD's and sealed by the UN still contained WMD's but the media said those didn't count as WMD's because they were under the UN seal and we knew he had those. That UN padlock would not be able to stop them from getting to them for long. Another thing I find interesting about the debate is the fact that it was not about WMD's it was about the many violations of the cease fire agreement and the 17 UN resolutions that were never complied with. The WMD's only became the front runner in the media. But then people tend to forget this and listen only to what the media was/is telling them. Maybe some people should go back and dig up the congressonial debates about it before the decision was made by congress to declare the cease fire void and stop paying so much attention to the media.

So the major question still remains "how many WMD's does it take to count as WMD's".
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top