• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Saddam: 'I Lied About WMD In Fear Of Iran'

While his war was wrong, his overall statement aint. The US tried very hard to stay out of WW2 with the exception of Roosevelt. The US congress was in many ways pro Nazi Germany and had implemented many of the eugenics laws long before Hilter even dreamed of it. So his statement that the US was dragged into WW2 is very much correct.

Note to history here . . .

To the very limited extent this was true, eugenics were the darling of the LEFT, the Progressives, and many (probably most) prominent Nazi sympathizers were of that lot, too.

By the way, EVERYONE was "dragged" into WWII; no one wanted to fight the Axis until they had to.
 
While his war was wrong, his overall statement aint. The US politicians tried very hard to stay out of WW2 with the exception of Roosevelt. The US congress was in many ways pro Nazi Germany and had implemented many of the eugenics laws long before Hilter even dreamed of it. So his statement that the US was dragged into WW2 is very much correct.

Well first Pete his WAR sorry if your going to make a post then make sure that you have the correct information as I have shown he was wrong.

Now on to your post 1940 Congress was Pro-Nazi oh man that is very funny so I guess you must have forgot about Lend-Lease and Four Stacker,and the Eagle Squadron(s) huh.

Look if you really want to have a discussion on the United State per WWII and how and why we enter then great I suggest that you start a thread in the History Forum an dlets stay on topic in this one.
 
While his war was wrong, his overall statement aint. The US politicians tried very hard to stay out of WW2 with the exception of Roosevelt. The US congress was in many ways pro Nazi Germany and had implemented many of the eugenics laws long before Hilter even dreamed of it. So his statement that the US was dragged into WW2 is very much correct.
This is just ridiculous. :roll:
The US didn't join the war because it had no benefits for it.
While that was bad enough, claiming that the US congress was pro-Nazi is just low and idiotic.
 
So Scorpion, you are saying that the U.S., after all of the protests not to get involved, done so out of it's desire to protect Europe? No, the U.S. went to war over Pearl Harbor, and nothing more.

As I admit that I am not a WWII junkie, I know enough of the history to know that the nation as a whole, while supportive and more than willing to supply the European military, had no desire before Pearl Harbor, to join the effort of fighting the Axis. But, you are right, we have digressed. Back to topic, one that I know very much about, the war in Iraq.

After we sufficiently starved the Iraqi people, allowed no supplies to repair water treatment facilities, and denied medication, all while Saadam was doing fine. We invaded under false pretenses, and wondered why we were not hailed as liberators. The next step is to create thousands of more enemies by de-Baathification, which led to a total loss of trained, professional military and civil workers. Followed by lack of a sufficient occupying force.

Regardless of all of the incompotence, I supported the surge, and hope that Iraq does indeed become the beacon of hope in the Middle East. I just pray that a lesson in thinking before you act is learned by those that conduct U.S. foreign policy.
 
So Scorpion, you are saying that the U.S., after all of the protests not to get involved, done so out of it's desire to protect Europe? No, the U.S. went to war over Pearl Harbor, and nothing more.

As I admit that I am not a WWII junkie, I know enough of the history to know that the nation as a whole, while supportive and more than willing to supply the European military, had no desire before Pearl Harbor, to join the effort of fighting the Axis. But, you are right, we have digressed. Back to topic, one that I know very much about, the war in Iraq.

After we sufficiently starved the Iraqi people, allowed no supplies to repair water treatment facilities, and denied medication, all while Saadam was doing fine. We invaded under false pretenses, and wondered why we were not hailed as liberators. The next step is to create thousands of more enemies by de-Baathification, which led to a total loss of trained, professional military and civil workers. Followed by lack of a sufficient occupying force.

Regardless of all of the incompotence, I supported the surge, and hope that Iraq does indeed become the beacon of hope in the Middle East. I just pray that a lesson in thinking before you act is learned by those that conduct U.S. foreign policy.

First off let me put this up and front I'm pretty sure that I'm the only person on this Forum who spent most of the time period of 1992-2002 in and out of Iraq as a UN Weapons Inspector.

So with that said I can tell you this most of the crap you have read about the war is just that crap, none of these so-called expert's were ever with us when we try to go into site's.

Han's Blix my last UN Team Boss never I repete never every went with any Team to do an on-site inspections if he did then he would have discovered what we had been complaining about since 1999 that Saddam was playing a cat and Mouse Game with the UN and that their was some sort of back dorr deal going on because we say allot "FLASHY ITEMS" that high ranking Iraqi Officials had.

Like I have said I can't wait till 2015 when I can actually sit down and write about my experiance with the UN. Myself and three other folks from my team plan on doing this to get out some of the REAL TRUTH not the Media Bias BS.
 
First off let me put this up and front I'm pretty sure that I'm the only person on this Forum who spent most of the time period of 1992-2002 in and out of Iraq as a UN Weapons Inspector.

So with that said I can tell you this most of the crap you have read about the war is just that crap, none of these so-called expert's were ever with us when we try to go into site's.

Han's Blix my last UN Team Boss never I repete never every went with any Team to do an on-site inspections if he did then he would have discovered what we had been complaining about since 1999 that Saddam was playing a cat and Mouse Game with the UN and that their was some sort of back dorr deal going on because we say allot "FLASHY ITEMS" that high ranking Iraqi Officials had.

Like I have said I can't wait till 2015 when I can actually sit down and write about my experiance with the UN. Myself and three other folks from my team plan on doing this to get out some of the REAL TRUTH not the Media Bias BS.

I will have to take your word for it sir. I hope you and I keep in touch because I definitely want to read that book.
 
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/compendium_summary/s-2006-420-English.pdf

'In carrying out its mandate, the United Nations Special Commission
(UNSCOM) was provided with unprecedented rights of access to Iraq’s relevant
facilities, personnel, documents and other materials. Despite varying degrees of
cooperation from the Iraqi authorities at the time, the United Nations inspectors
successfully oversaw the destruction, removal or rendering harmless of Iraq’s
declared WMD programmes in the chemical, biological and missile areas. The
Commission also implemented a monitoring system which essentially ensured that
proscribed programmes were not revived while international inspectors were
present'


Another report said that with the threat of invasion Iraq because 'extremely cooperative'. Give me a moment to find that.

lol how long is this moment going to be?
 
Yeah...

Only one logical answer to that question:

If he wasn't lying, then we bomb the shit out of his country and obligate ourselves to rebuilding his nation and making it a democracy and lose thousands of American lives and spend over a trillion dollars in the process...


Real good, man. Let's base major war decisions based on 'what if.'


I don't care if he was lying or not - don't send my military in to enforce U.N. sanctions.



***By the way, your 'bomb threat' scenario doesn't apply. See, we had control over Saddam Hussein's military since 1991, the first gulf war. He couldn't threaten us with anything. Unless you're afraid of blustering pissants.


If he isn't lying he bombs the **** out of your mother, wife, daugter, cause he sole those wmd to people who want to kill you.....


It's called "critical thinking" you may thank me privatley. :thumbs:
 
True, but that could have been done without a war..

Our time in Iraq has done more than got Saddam killed and proved there was no WMD's in Iraq. The unnecessary war led the Iraqi people to democracy. The nation of Iraq gained more from the war than they would have if Saddam had been kicked out of office by the UN. They were put in charge and given the authority to put Saddam on trial. If the UN had kicked Saddam out of office and that was it, he would have been replaced by another dictator. Iraq is better for the war.

Everyone says that too many people died, and that Bush killed our soldiers, then they will top that off with a "the war was a failure and stupid." Well, I think we should listen to a soldier before we praise some left wing doomsayer. The soldiers always say that it is going well and they want to stay and finish the job. The only soldiers that say otherwise are the ones that joined the army as a last resort because they barely passed high school, and then got hurt in Iraq.
 
Before you go making an arse of yourself I suggest you do some research for the record,

Iraq fired 88 Scud-B during the whole Gulf War of these this is the break down,

42 Scud-B mostly Al-Hussein at Israel
19 Scud-B Al-Hussein at Dhahran, Al Jubayl, Bahrain, and Qatar.
Of these 19 attacks 6 of them were against Bahrain and Qatar

Now that leaves a total of 40 Scud fired at Saudi Arab during the Gulf War.

If you're going to use wiki, or answers.com, then you're the ass. I'll trust the following data over whatever source you found:

While there is uncertainty over the total number of Scuds fired during the war, one study done by General Merrill McPeak, Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force,("The Air campaign: Part of the Combined Arms Operations," Dept. of Air Force, 1991) is considered the most reliable.

McPeak's data, drawn from a variety of coalition sources, indicates that between January 18 and February 26, 1991, 40 Scuds were launched against Israel and 46 against Saudi Arabia.


frontline: the gulf war: weapons: ss-1 scud
 
If he isn't lying he bombs the **** out of your mother, wife, daugter, cause he sole those wmd to people who want to kill you.....


It's called "critical thinking" you may thank me privatley. :thumbs:

Hey, Reverend! What if the sky is falling?!?

That's as believable as the threats of a militarily impotent liar.
 
That's as believable as the threats of a militarily impotent liar.

There was a time the same was thought of Hitler and Hirohito.

How'd that work out for people you seem to want to emulate?
 
Like I have said I can't wait till 2015 when I can actually sit down and write about my experiance with the UN. Myself and three other folks from my team plan on doing this to get out some of the REAL TRUTH not the Media Bias BS.

I call bull**** there because the standard non-disclosure agreement that you sign is for 75 years. I signed each time I went to a new duty station.

And that agreement is not military only. It is for anyone with a classified clearance.

So either you are lying, or there is some nice little new super secret non-disclosure agreement that you signed. Please tell us why 2015?
 
There was a time the same was thought of Hitler and Hirohito.

How'd that work out for people you seem to want to emulate?

To your first sentence, Hitler and Hirohito were not militarily impotent.

To your second, what the hell are you talking about?
 
Try to bear in mind that you're basing your opinion on the statements of a mass murderer, who was facing execution for his crimes, at the hands of millions of his victims if he couldn't talk his way out of his predicament.

You might want to also give a few seconds of calm thought to the fact that Iraq had just kicked the stuffing out of Iran in their quaint little war, without recourse to WMD. It is probable that Iran had noticed this and wasn't likely to threaten Iraq just then

So for him, as former dictator to state that his was aquiver with giddy fear of the country he had just humiliated on the battlefield was just possibly, if we stretch our skepticism to the breaking point, what people used to call in a simpler time, a transparent lie.

By the way, this also about the time he used his nonexistent, yet secret from the Iranians who weren't dead and flyblown in the desert to gas the Kurds.
 
Last edited:
To your second, what the hell are you talking about?

Seems pretty obvious to me. Sorry you can't understand it.

To your first response, no, but people thought America was safe all the way across the pond.

Just like you seem to think there was no way Saddam could have harmed us.
 
Last edited:
We'll see if this "Democracy" is maintained and survives for a decade.

It'll collapse and a dictator will come into power and deaths would have been for nothing no doubt.
I'm sorry, are you talking about Iraq, or America?
 
Seems pretty obvious to me. Sorry you can't understand it.

To your first response, no, but people thought America was safe all the way across the pond.

Just like you seem to think there was no way Saddam could have harmed us.

There's no point in talking to you if you think the threat of Saddam Hussein in 2003 was in any way equivalent to Hitler and Hirohito circa 1941. There was no similarity.
 
Saddam was a threat to Israel and we couldn't afford to allow Israel to defend themselves from him.
 
Saddam was a threat to Israel and we couldn't afford to allow Israel to defend themselves from him.

He was a blowhard. You can't threaten Israel with V-2 rockets. They will bomb all f*** out of you, and rightfully so.

But you are right about the dangers of Israel defending itself from Iraq, or other neighbor. That would have created a huge Arabic mess in the M.E., beyond the norm.
 
If you're going to use wiki, or answers.com, then you're the ass. I'll trust the following data over whatever source you found:

While there is uncertainty over the total number of Scuds fired during the war, one study done by General Merrill McPeak, Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force,("The Air campaign: Part of the Combined Arms Operations," Dept. of Air Force, 1991) is considered the most reliable.

McPeak's data, drawn from a variety of coalition sources, indicates that between January 18 and February 26, 1991, 40 Scuds were launched against Israel and 46 against Saudi Arabia.


frontline: the gulf war: weapons: ss-1 scud

No actually I'm using my own notes that went into a Dept. of Defense White paper by Bernard Rostker who was doing research on Skud attacks and Gulf War Illness.

As for General McPeak report that didn't take in effect what USAF Space Command came up with which was 97 Scud s fired, The Iraqi's told UN/US Inspectors that they had fired 95 Skuds.

The 88 number comes from confirmed inbond Skuds that were tracked by Airborn Command E-3s of the 42 Launch at Israel 41 of them either landed with-in or near Israel with at least 5 landing with-in the Israel/ Jordan borded.

That leaves the other 46 Skuds which as I have shown 6 of these landed in the Countries of Qatar and Bahrain that leaves the last 40 that where fired at The Kingdom.

Now if you would like to read the whole report here is the DoD numder so you can send a request in and have it mailed to you.

2000038-0000006
By,Bernard Rostker
Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses
Department of Defense
 
He was a blowhard. You can't threaten Israel with V-2 rockets. They will bomb all f*** out of you, and rightfully so.

Except that they weren't even close to being a V-2.
 
No actually I'm using my own notes that went into a Dept. of Defense White paper by Bernard Rostker who was doing research on Skud attacks and Gulf War Illness.

As for General McPeak report that didn't take in effect what USAF Space Command came up with which was 97 Scud s fired, The Iraqi's told UN/US Inspectors that they had fired 95 Skuds.

The 88 number comes from confirmed inbond Skuds that were tracked by Airborn Command E-3s of the 42 Launch at Israel 41 of them either landed with-in or near Israel with at least 5 landing with-in the Israel/ Jordan borded.

That leaves the other 46 Skuds which as I have shown 6 of these landed in the Countries of Qatar and Bahrain that leaves the last 40 that where fired at The Kingdom.

Now if you would like to read the whole report here is the DoD numder so you can send a request in and have it mailed to you.

2000038-0000006
By,Bernard Rostker
Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses
Department of Defense

It says plainly in my (properly linked) post that McPeak used a variety of coalition sources. Like I said, I'll trust his numbers over your (unlinked) source, and they prove out what I said earlier.
 
He was a blowhard. You can't threaten Israel with V-2 rockets. They will bomb all f*** out of you, and rightfully so.

But you are right about the dangers of Israel defending itself from Iraq, or other neighbor. That would have created a huge Arabic mess in the M.E., beyond the norm.

A blowhard whose WMD bluff (the point of this thread) could not be ignored.
 
Back
Top Bottom