Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
View Poll Results: Which do you see as a WMD off the top of your head
Nuclear Weapons 12 20.69%
Chemical Weapons 6 10.34%
Biological 0 0%
All of the above 40 68.97%
Voters: 58. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 10-16-2014, 02:02 AM
 
Location: Miami, FL
8,087 posts, read 9,801,504 times
Reputation: 6650

Advertisements

No I actually am well read and that is how the argument was made to the country as a reason for invasion. Again, how convenient to ignore the African yellow cake episode.

It is ignorance to claim otherwise.

Last edited by Felix C; 10-16-2014 at 02:14 AM..

 
Old 10-16-2014, 07:33 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,732 posts, read 44,535,751 times
Reputation: 13601
Quote:
Originally Posted by trlhiker View Post
When I hear WMD, I think of all the lies that Bush and Co. said that resulted in over 4,000+ dead Americans.
You mean Clinton's lies...


President Clinton orders attack on Iraq - YouTube
 
Old 10-16-2014, 07:48 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,732 posts, read 44,535,751 times
Reputation: 13601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix C View Post
It was always presented as a nuclear issue regarding Iraq.
No, it wasn't. Watch Clinton's video. It has always been about NBC, nuclear, biological AND chemical weapons in Iraq.
 
Old 10-16-2014, 07:50 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,732 posts, read 44,535,751 times
Reputation: 13601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
It is only presented that way by those who are ignorant.
Or those who specifically choose to continue deluding themselves.

Why anyone would actually CHOOSE to remain ignorant when a plethora of facts are out there and have been presented is beyond me. Perhaps a lefty can answer why they do so.
 
Old 10-16-2014, 07:54 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia
11,998 posts, read 12,884,551 times
Reputation: 8360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydive Outlaw View Post
I think of the US Federal Reserve

 
Old 10-16-2014, 08:05 AM
 
Location: Miami, FL
8,087 posts, read 9,801,504 times
Reputation: 6650
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
No, it wasn't. Watch Clinton's video. It has always been about NBC, nuclear, biological AND chemical weapons in Iraq.
My reference is to Bush post-9/11 and casus belli.
 
Old 10-16-2014, 08:12 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,732 posts, read 44,535,751 times
Reputation: 13601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix C View Post
My reference is to Bush post-9/11 and casus belli.
Your reference is a self-imposed delusion. WMDs were repeatedly referred to, not just the nuclear weapons subclass.
 
Old 10-16-2014, 08:13 AM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,391,289 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix C View Post
My reference is to Bush post-9/11 and casus belli.
Iraq was financing, training, and providing safe harbor to international terrorist organizations since 1977. Under Public Law 107-40, enacted into law on Sep. 18, 2001, that was more than sufficient "casus belli."
 
Old 10-16-2014, 08:13 AM
 
27,307 posts, read 16,167,119 times
Reputation: 12100
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679 View Post
I could be wrong, but that link says Saddam had the capacity to make WMD, so unless he postulated that Iraq had a nuclear program he could not have been talking about nukes. I don't recall ever hearing about nukes in Iraq in my gov or history classes though.
Iraq tried to have nukes but Israel bombed them out of existence.

Google Osirak.
 
Old 10-16-2014, 08:24 AM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,391,289 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Your reference is a self-imposed delusion. WMDs were repeatedly referred to, not just the nuclear weapons subclass.
WMDs made Iraq a priority, but it was not the reason for the invasion. Iraq was a known sponsor of international terrorism. In 2001 there were four such nations - Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Syria. Today only two remain that continue to sponsor international terrorism.

Frankly, I think we should have taken out Afghanistan, Iran, then Iraq. Syria would have probably freaked and capitulate like Libya. But as long as we were eliminating any of the four known government sponsors of international terrorism, I was not going to quibble with who we attacked after Afghanistan.

I still support the invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq, but I did not support the nation building in either country. First win the damn war, then rebuild the nation (without the military). Only the king of idiots attempts to rebuild a nation while fighting a war in that nation - or a politician seeking reelection.
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top