U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 02-09-2013, 05:43 PM
 
Location: New Orleans, La. USA
5,924 posts, read 2,825,128 times
Reputation: 2184

Advertisements

The following documentary about Iraq, shows the death, lies, and real reasons we attacked Iraq (both links go to the same documentary.)
You don't hear about these things on NBC, CBS, Fox, ex.ex.


The Oil Factor: Behind the War on Terror | Watch Free Documentary Online








The Oil Factor Behind the War on Terror-Call 202-456-1414 - YouTube

Last edited by chad3; 02-09-2013 at 05:52 PM..

 
Old 09-09-2013, 09:12 AM
 
66,328 posts, read 30,210,361 times
Reputation: 8625
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
The US Team that was tasked to find the WMDs in Iraq disagree with you.
They were moved to Syria. So Says Obama's own Director of National Intelligence:
Quote:
The director [Clapper] of a top American spy agency said Tuesday that he believed that material from Iraq's illicit weapons program had been transported into Syria and perhaps other countries as part of an effort by the Iraqis to disperse and destroy evidence immediately before the recent war.
THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ - WEAPONS SEARCH - Iraqis Removed Arms Material, U.S. Aide Says - NYTimes.com

And why would Iraq know to move its illicit weapons right before the invasion? Answer: The treasonous stunt Rockefeller pulled that prompted Iraq to move the weapons:
Quote:
Rockefeller (D-WV): "I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11."
That was an EXACT quote. Transcript here:
Transcript: Sens. Roberts, Rockefeller
 
Old 09-09-2013, 09:23 AM
 
2,097 posts, read 1,823,194 times
Reputation: 2202
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
They didn't need to. Why?

Because the facilities that were capable of storing and maintaining WMDs in Iraq had been abandoned or converted to other uses by 1997. By the time George Bush was elected, Iraq had already been WMD free for years.

You're being just a bit disingenuous on this point. Saddam maintained the bluff that he still possessed WMDs until the invasion in 2003. All the intelligence, including reports from expelled U.N. weapons inspectors all suspected Iraq still possessed WMDs up until the point of invasion. It was not until after the invasion that the dismantling of the WMD infrastructure was confirmed. In spite of this fact, chemical weapons production equipment, growth media for biological agents, and over 100 tons of yellow cake uranium ore will still found in Iraq following the invasion. The yellow cake was sold to a Canadian firm and transported out of Iraq in 2008-09.
 
Old 09-09-2013, 09:27 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,715 posts, read 11,535,620 times
Reputation: 5606
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
They were moved to Syria. So Says Obama's own Director of National Intelligence:THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ - WEAPONS SEARCH - Iraqis Removed Arms Material, U.S. Aide Says - NYTimes.com

And why would Iraq know to move its illicit weapons right before the invasion? Answer: The treasonous stunt Rockefeller pulled that prompted Iraq to move the weapons:That was an EXACT quote. Transcript here:
Transcript: Sens. Roberts, Rockefeller
The article you linked was a 2003 article, quoting James R. Clapper Jr.

From Wiki:

Quote:
In 2003, Clapper, then head of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, attempted to explain the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq by asserting that the weapons materials were "unquestionably" shipped out of Iraq to Syria and other countries just before the American invasion, a "personal assessment" which Clapper's own agency head at the time, David Burpee, "could not provide further evidence to support."[10]
In other words, Clapper provided his opinion, not proof.
 
Old 09-09-2013, 09:31 AM
Status: ""a mind that understands science"" (set 16 days ago)
 
18,889 posts, read 12,150,958 times
Reputation: 10304
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
George W. Bush did not knowingly lie about WMDs in Iraq | Other voices - The News Tribune

A good op-ed by a Yale prof who also does a column for Bloomberg News. He confirms what any reasonably intelligent person not suffering from a derangement syndrome should already know: there were no "lies about WMD" from the Bush admin. He cites a book by Brit journalist Gordon Corera for his evidence:



As I have posted before, even Saddam's own senior officers believed it. It was all a consequence of Saddam's 'deterrence by doubt' strategy which was mainly intended to cow the Iranians. Saddam confirmed this in interrogations after being captured.



I believe that the "Bush lied, thousands died" meme will be remembered by historians as one of the biggest idiocies of US politics ever. Maybe even more worrisome that the meme itself was the fact that it was so widely embraced by so many Americans. There is doubtlessl a large percentage of the population, maybe even a majority, who still believe it. If a large number of people in a democratically-run nation can be persuaded of a stupid and easily disproven proposition, that nation is in trouble.

Of course Saddam had chemical weapons. Do the libs really believe that he simply discarded all of them after he had used them on the Kurds and the Iranians before that?

Shocking, yet this is what they really believe.
 
Old 09-09-2013, 09:35 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,782 posts, read 13,851,504 times
Reputation: 6951
The big difference is we invaded Iraq with ground troops, we have no plans to invade Syria and occupy, yet in both situations our intelligence tells us they both have WMD. The largest difference is that Bush felt the need to invade without being sure.

There has been situations in the past where we had intelligence but chose not to act on the information without being sure. When Reagan bombed Libya he didn't have irrefutable proof that Qaddafi was at the heart of the attacks. If you go to war with a country and send occupying troops you better be dam sure you are correct, obviously we were wrong.


Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House asserted Sunday that a “common-sense test”
dictates the Syrian government is responsible for a chemical weapons attack that
President Barack Obama says demands a U.S. military response. But Obama’s top
aide says the administration lacks “irrefutable, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt
evidence” that skeptical Americans, including lawmakers who will start voting on
military action this week, are seeking.

White House: No ‘Irrefutable, Beyond-a-Reasonable-Doubt Evidence’ That Syrian Gov’t Behind Chemical Weapons Attack | TheBlaze.com
 
Old 09-09-2013, 09:38 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,715 posts, read 11,535,620 times
Reputation: 5606
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
Of course Saddam had chemical weapons. Do the libs really believe that he simply discarded all of them after he had used them on the Kurds and the Iranians before that?

Shocking, yet this is what they really believe.
None, except an aged, buried and forgotten shell from the early 1980s, was ever found. If Iraq had chemical weapons in 2003, where did they go? Since neither the weapons themselves not an active chemical program was ever found -- even after the invasion, the conclusion that "Of course Saddam had chemical weapons," is highly suspect.

Chemical weapons have a shelf life. Such weapons were known to be used in 1982. By 2003, with a 1990 war in the middle, it's rather likely that they no longer existed. But that wasn't important to the Bush White House, since it gave them an excuse to invade.

 
Old 09-09-2013, 09:38 AM
 
26,324 posts, read 24,447,679 times
Reputation: 16012
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
George W. Bush did not knowingly lie about WMDs in Iraq | Other voices - The News Tribune

A good op-ed by a Yale prof who also does a column for Bloomberg News. He confirms what any reasonably intelligent person not suffering from a derangement syndrome should already know: there were no "lies about WMD" from the Bush admin. He cites a book by Brit journalist Gordon Corera for his evidence:



As I have posted before, even Saddam's own senior officers believed it. It was all a consequence of Saddam's 'deterrence by doubt' strategy which was mainly intended to cow the Iranians. Saddam confirmed this in interrogations after being captured.



I believe that the "Bush lied, thousands died" meme will be remembered by historians as one of the biggest idiocies of US politics ever. Maybe even more worrisome that the meme itself was the fact that it was so widely embraced by so many Americans. There is doubtlessl a large percentage of the population, maybe even a majority, who still believe it. If a large number of people in a democratically-run nation can be persuaded of a stupid and easily disproven proposition, that nation is in trouble.
then why were none found?
 
Old 09-09-2013, 09:40 AM
 
66,328 posts, read 30,210,361 times
Reputation: 8625
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
The article you linked was a 2003 article, quoting James R. Clapper Jr.
Yes. He is Obama's current Director of National Intelligence.

Quote:
Clapper provided his opinion, not proof.
Yes, Clapper provided his opinion in his capacity as an expert. If Clapper's expertise was suspect, why would Obama make him his DNI, AND still have him serving in that capacity?
 
Old 09-09-2013, 09:50 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,715 posts, read 11,535,620 times
Reputation: 5606
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Yes, Clapper provided his opinion in his capacity as an expert. If Clapper's expertise was suspect, why would Obama make him his DNI, AND still have him serving in that capacity?
If every official who had a mistaken opinion was barred from public service we wouldn't have any officials.

It's kind of ironic knowing that modern conservatism have wrong opinions all the time without consequences. They said Keynesian policies were going to cause hyperinflation, which it didn't. They said, the deficit is rising, when it isn't, etc.

Nevertheless, that was Clapper's opinion in 2003. Perhaps he was ordered to give that tainted view.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:12 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top